DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the death of the right hon. Eric Forth, Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our sympathy to the right hon. Member's family and friends.

Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

England Rural Development Programme

David Drew: What analysis his Department has undertaken in advance of setting out its preferred options for the England rural development programme 2007 to 2013; and if he will make a statement.

Barry Gardiner: The current consultation on the priorities for the next rural development programme for England has been informed by our extensive analysis of economic, environmental and social issues facing rural areas. We will use it to enhance the environment and countryside, to make agriculture and forestry more sustainable and to promote opportunities in rural areas for those who are disadvantaged. We will continue to develop the evidence base and work closely with all our partnership organisations to ensure that the new programme delivers on our priorities for the next seven years.

David Drew: I add my condolences.
	I welcome my hon. Friend to his new post. He has already shown a good grasp of biodiversity. Is it not a shame that the Government are apparently examining only one measure of animal welfare, although if they were to follow the lead of our territorial Governments and Assemblies in Scotland and Wales, they would be looking at more measures? Is it not wrong that that is one aspect of the cuts in rural funding, although several of us made it clear that that was not the right way to go? I hope that my hon. Friend will give some good news—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Barry Gardiner: The Government recognise the importance of good animal health and welfare standards in the farming industry, but we are confident that farmers in England already achieve animal welfare standards that are in excess of the minimum legal requirements. That is a matter of good stock management and it makes sound business sense. We try to target scarce resources not towards existing good practice in that area, but to incentivise new ways of making agriculture more competitive and sustainable. We can use other measures in axis 1 to improve the skills base of people in the industry to ensure that we direct resources towards animal welfare.

Andrew Turner: May I express my deep condolences to Carroll and sympathy to Eric's family and friends, wherever they are?
	The Minister's Department shares membership with the Department of Trade and Industry and Post Office Ltd. of a tripartite committee on the development of the rural post office network. Does he agree that many other Government Departments are sadly undermining the future of the post office network by, for example, removing the TV licence, taking benefit payments out of the network and threatening the future of the Post Office card account, and are thus driving people on to the roads to go out of their villages and into towns to access essential services? I know that £450 million is being—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must cut down the questions. That question was far too long.

Barry Gardiner: The Government recognise that access to essential services through the post office network is critical for the countryside and people living in rural areas. However, we must recognise that the network is not being used as it once was by people in both urban and rural areas. Customers have voted with their feet. The loss to the network started long before 1993, the changes regarding the Post Office card account and the direct payment of benefits. If the Government are to act responsibly, they must ensure that they get the maximum benefit to people through services. However, they must examine new ways of delivering those services, such as through the internet, as the customer demands that we should. We need to meet customers' needs in the way in which they want us to.

Bill Wiggin: I welcome the Minister to his new role. I think that the closest that he has come to farming in the past is Farm road, which is a small lane in his constituency.
	Has the Minister read pages 33 and 34 of the consultation, which propose that animal welfare payments are excluded from the new programme? Has his Department failed to understand that that money could be used to improve animal welfare, as well as to reduce the advantage of cheap imports from foreign countries that put a low value on animal welfare? Given that the programme in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will support animal welfare, why is England being left behind?

Barry Gardiner: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome to my new duties. If one were to consider a Minister having a farming constituency a sufficient condition of all going well in the countryside, rural communities would never have suffered the outbreaks of BSE and of salmonella in poultry that they experienced under Tory grandees. Let Ministers be judged on their actions, not on their provenance.
	The hon. Gentleman failed to listen to my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). Far from excluding animal welfare from the rural development programme, we have specifically stated ways in which we can deliver on that agenda through training and access to skills under axis 1 and axis 3. After the Curry commission, the Government's clear focus is, rightly, on establishing environmental standards and stewardship at the heart of our efforts. That is the future of farming and farmers in this country.

Greenhouse Gases

Graham Allen: If he will set targets for a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft and ships which are not included in Government figures on greenhouse gas emissions.

Ian Pearson: Emissions from international aviation and maritime transport were not included in the 1997 Kyoto protocol. We are working at international level to limit or reduce those emissions. As part of that work, we want the aviation sector to be included in the European Union emissions trading scheme.

Graham Allen: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the recent work done at Manchester university that shows that if international pollution from sources such as aviation and shipping is included in the calculation of emissions, the UK has made no reduction in carbon dioxide emissions since 1990. Will he commit to working with his European partners to establish an EU framework to reduce the emissions involved in international pollution? Does not that problem underline the fact that although all of us must do what we can as individuals to combat environmental pollution, ultimately the answer lies at international level and in global agreements?

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I am aware of the research conducted by Manchester university. The issue that he describes is the reason why the Government are so committed to taking action internationally. As I said, we want the aviation sector to be included in the EU ETS, and one of the achievements of the UK presidency last year was to get the Environment Council in December to agree that the Commission would make proposals this year on aviation's inclusion in the scheme. We shall continue to press the Commission on that.

Nicholas Winterton: I have met the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner), with a constituency company in the aerospace industry that is having problems with emissions. The company is Senior Aerospace and it is critical to the aerospace industry. Will the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment do me the courtesy of meeting me and my constituency company to discuss its future?

Ian Pearson: I shall be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. The aerospace industry is critical to the north-west and the region that he represents. I recently had the opportunity to go round the Airbus factory in Toulouse, where I saw the new A380, which is being flown into Heathrow today. It is an enormous piece of engineering and a tribute to British expertise—for example, the Rolls-Royce engines are far more environmentally friendly than their predecessors. It is something of which we can be proud.

Patrick Hall: My hon. Friend will be aware that the aviation industry is widely reported to support the establishment of an emissions trading scheme within the EU, but he will also know that there is no prospect of replacing aviation kerosene with a low or zero-carbon fuel. There is therefore a danger that, under an emissions trading scheme, the aviation industry will simply purchase credits from other sectors that have succeeded in making cuts, without doing so itself. Does he agree that much greater pressure must be brought to bear to boost scientific research into aviation fuels and engines, so that the industry itself can contribute to significant cuts in the future?

Ian Pearson: I know that my hon. Friend takes a deep interest in these matters. He is right to say that more research into improving fuel technologies is needed. That work is happening now, but that does not detract from the fact that we want aviation to be included in the EU ETS and, as a Government, we shall continue to press for that.

Christopher Huhne: May I first express my condolences to the family of Eric Forth? It is shocking that someone who made such a lively and vigorous contribution to the proceedings of the House should be struck down in such a way. I will miss sparring with him, not least on the issues that we are discussing today, such as climate change.
	Does the Minister agree that an 8 per cent. fall in revenue in four years against a 35 per cent. rise in the number of air passengers makes a mockery of air passenger duty, and that it should be restructured so as to be based on emissions to encourage full flights? Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to raise this matter with his colleagues, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Does he agree that the issue is symptomatic of a failure properly to examine the potential environmental impact of green taxes across the board? Will he urge his Treasury colleagues to bring forward a comprehensive review of environmental tax incentives?

Ian Pearson: No, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman on green taxation policy. As a Government, we have made major improvements. We shall continue to review matters such as air passenger duty. We should not underestimate the achievements that have been made. The UK is one of the few countries that is on target to meet its Kyoto commitments. I am proud of that fact. The climate change programme that we published in March sets out a range of actions. We have set a direction of travel for the UK that is leading the world. We need now to continue to push internationally to get other countries to follow the same policies as those of the United Kingdom. That action is needed urgently if we are to tackle the greatest problem facing the planet in the long term.

Peter Ainsworth: The whole House has been shocked by the news about Eric Forth. I join with those who have sent condolences to his wife and family. He was a formidable parliamentarian and he will be greatly missed.
	May I further illustrate the scale of the challenge that is posed by aviation emissions? Everyone knows that the problem at present is quite small, but statistics show that emissions are growing by about 12 per cent. a year. Assuming that we meet the 60 per cent. total emission reduction target by 2050, and using figures based on public transport forecasts and those of the Treasury, aviation emissions are on track to represent about 60 per cent. of the UK total by 2050. That calculation is supported by the Environment Audit Committee and by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.
	So far, the Government's position, first, has been to leave aviation emissions out of the calculations, which is clearly untenable. Secondly, they hope—we have heard about this again this morning—that aviation can be included in the troubled EU emissions trading scheme. If that proves impossible, is there a plan B?

Ian Pearson: I add my condolences to those expressed by the hon. Gentleman with respect to Eric Forth, who was widely respected in the House. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will want to say something about that shortly.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that we want to see aviation fuel as part of an emissions trading scheme. We need to take action on aviation fuel. That is why, through the United Nations framework convention on climate change and the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the United Kingdom is pushing to ensure that international action is taken. International industries need international solutions. That is why it is so important that we take this action. It is right that aviation fuel represents about only 5 per cent. of UK emissions, but the use of it is planned to increase. That is why we need to take urgent action. We need to commit ourselves internationally.

Single Farm Payments

Tony Baldry: What representations he has made to the EU on extending the period of time to make single farm payments to farmers.

Andrew Robathan: How many officials have been moved from his Department as a consequence of problems with single farm payments.

David Miliband: Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will allow me to associate the entire ministerial team at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with the shock and dismay expressed by Members on both sides of the House about the untimely death of Eric Forth. He was utterly committed not just to his constituency, but to the House of Commons, and he was an important example to us all.
	Officials effectively applied for an extension for the payment deadline to the European Commission in April, but I am relieved to report to the House that, according to the latest figures, 87 per cent. of payments have now been disbursed to 76 per cent. of claimants. Four DEFRA Officials, including chief executive Mark Addison, have been temporarily loaned to the Rural Payments Agency for different periods to strengthen the agency's capacity to deal with the current problems associated with the single payment scheme.

Tony Baldry: We welcome the Secretary of State to his new post, but I hope that he appreciates that farmers began to feel unloved when we had three farm Ministers in five days. Why were part-payments not made to farmers in January and will they receive any compensation for the interest on their debts and borrowings? There is another mystery to resolve. In April, officials wrote to the European Commission asking for an extension but, at the same time, the previous Secretary of State told the House that all was well. Those two facts are irreconcilable, but perhaps he can try to reconcile them.

David Miliband: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. There was no technical reason why partial payments could not have been made in January, but all the advice that Ministers received was that the scheme was on track. When it became clear that it was off track we had to take emergency measures. I hope that farmers in his constituency have received partial payments, as 31,000 have been made. By the middle of April, it was appropriate to approach the European Commission—officials have done so, and we await a reply. Our priority is obviously to make sure that the payments are made. There are about 3,700 large claims that are still waiting to be made—the figure is down from the 5,000 a week ago—and a remaining 20 per cent. payment must be made to the 31,000 farmers who have received partial payments. Finally, there is the question of small claims of less than €1,000. More than half of the claimants in that category—about 40,000 or so—have received payment, but we want to make sure that the rest of them do so.

Andrew Robathan: As a farmer, I have dealings with the Rural Payments Agency and I can tell the new ministerial team that it is hopelessly bureaucratic, over-staffed and astonishingly inefficient. The debacle over the single farm payment has caused hardship for many farmers across the country, and they are in serious difficulty. The chief executive has been moved, my neighbour and friend, Lord Bach, has been sacked and, bizarrely, the previous Secretary of State was promoted. However, the whole organisation needs a shake-up. Will the new ministerial team look at the way in which the RPA functions and shake it up from top to bottom? As Ministers are new to the job, they have a good opportunity to make the agency work for the benefit of agriculture, the environment and the farming industry.

David Miliband: Given that our priority is to get the money out to farming communities, the last thing that we should do is give the organisation a great big shake. The priority is to get the money out properly, but it is right, as I said in my statement last week, to learn the lessons of the difficulties of 2005. I make no attempt to hide the difficulties that continue to challenge us in 2006, but I am determined, with the new chief executive, to ensure that we establish a dependable organisation with which farmers such as the hon. Gentleman can deal efficiently.

Roger Williams: I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his new post, and I wish him good fortune with his wide-ranging responsibilities.
	Indebtedness in British agriculture now stands at £9.3 billion, which is an increase of £8 million on the figure 12 months ago. Increased borrowing involves increased costs in interest rates and arrangement fees, which the industry can ill afford. English farmers are a special case, because almost every other European nation managed to make the payment at the beginning of the payment window. Will the Secretary of State make arrangements to meet the EU Commissioner soon to work out a special compensation scheme so that English farmers do not bear the cost of the Government's crass incompetence?

David Miliband: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I shall be attending my first Agriculture Council on Monday—a treat reserved for the lucky few. I gather that it is a process designed to convince those of us of strong pro-European credentials that we could not be more right, and that the European Union is the most perfect organisation to deal with. I will meet the Commissioner on Monday. It is important that we give out a message from our Department that we are proud of the work of British farmers, that the British food that they produce is top quality, and that we are determined to work with them to support the environment in which they live and to ensure not only that the farming payments are made, but that the diversification that they have led over the past few years continues. For me, farmers are at the front line of the fight against climate change and we must ensure that they are supported in their activities.

Michael Jack: In welcoming the Secretary of State to his new and ever-challenging post, may I remind him that the permanent secretary of his Department on Monday said about what happened in February with the Rural Payments Agency that when they came to press the button to pay the cheques, there was "a spurt" and then the system had "gummed up." Has the new Secretary of State asked why the system gummed up? If he has had an answer, can he share it with the House?

David Miliband: "Gummed up" is one of the more technical terms that I shall have to get used to in my briefings. The post-mortem on the difficulties will take place. The Hunter review is going through. We are determined to learn the lessons, but in the two meetings that I have had so far, my priority has been to make sure, first, that the partial payments go out to provide relief, and secondly, that we have a clear sense of priorities to tackle the outstanding claims. The fact that those 5,000 complex cases that I reported last week are now down to about 3,700 is a sign of progress made by the staff of the agency.

Denis MacShane: On a more general philosophical point of good and efficient governance, why is no civil servant, with the rarest of rare exceptions, ever dismissed for incompetence?

David Miliband: The senior civil servant at the Rural Payments Agency did lose his job in this case.

Bill Wiggin: Has he gone?

David Miliband: He certainly has gone. His replacement has done an excellent job and I look forward to putting the RPA on to a settled basis.

James Paice: I thank the Secretary of State for kind remarks about Eric Forth. Those of us who served with him in government understood his ability in that context and as a parliamentarian.
	I welcome the Secretary of State to his new responsibility. He takes over at a time when the distrust of the Government by farmers is probably at its lowest ebb since 1947— [Interruption.] I am delighted that hon. Members take such pleasure in the distrust of the Government by farmers. The partial payments are welcome, though long overdue, and the Minister has just said that the 5,000-odd complex cases have been reduced to 3,700, which I am glad to hear, but those—they are all large farmers—have received nothing. Also, as the Secretary of State will know, by last Monday farmers were required to claim this year's for payment on their entitlements, even though the vast majority have not had their entitlements validated, so their difficulty in filling in an accurate form is obvious. As he has asked for the extension to the payment window, why does he not also ask for an extension to this year's claim date, as Poland has already done, so that those claims can be based on validated entitlements, otherwise he will face thousands of individual disputes next year about why claims have been incorrectly submitted, based on false evidence and false information from the Rural Payments Agency?

David Miliband: I am sorry that there is confusion about the matter. Working with the National Farmers Union, among others, the deadline for submitting forms for 2006 has been extended to 31 May.

James Paice: Not long enough.

David Miliband: The National Farmers Union—the hon. Gentleman can visit its website—said that that was an excellent development and is working with us to ensure that every farmer gets their form in.  [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can come back for a second question, and I will give him a good answer.

Climate Change

Martin Horwood: Whether he expects the UK to meet the deadline of 2 June to respond to the consultation by working group 1 of the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

David Miliband: Yes.

Martin Horwood: I share in the expressions of sympathy for the family of Eric Forth. Those of us who would argue with his politics on many occasions could never argue with the wit and intellect with which he put them forward.
	I am pleased by the Minister's response and glad that he is going to meet that deadline. Given that we would probably be in sympathy with much of the content of our submission on the science of climate change, what pressure is he putting on the American Government to ensure that their submission will finally accept the consensus of scientific opinion on climate change?

David Miliband: I think that people way above my pay grade are putting the right sort of discussions on the table with the American Government. Our responsibility is to ensure that our contribution to the IPCC report, which gains its authority from the fact that it represents an international consensus on climate change, continues to establish an intellectual basis for the changes that we need to make. I have not read the report but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that all the indications that I have had from the IPCC suggest that the degree of alarm that we should feel about climate change is well justified.

Andy Reed: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is correct. The alarm that the report will cause should galvanise us all in this country, but without international action much of what we can achieve could be minimal. Only this week, I read that China is building another 48 airports. Taking that into account, together with the Americans not coming on board, it is clear that whatever we do will have minimal effect. Will he ensure that what comes out of this is a genuine commitment on the part of those other countries to make their contribution to tackling climate change? Otherwise, we will all be struggling with this concept, and the poorest in the world will feel the consequences first.

David Miliband: I know that my hon. Friend takes an interest in these issues. I hope that he will agree that a year or 18 months ago, people around the world, notably in the United States, were still debating whether climate change is happening. As a result, due in significant part to the leadership of the Government in the G8 and the EU presidency, we are moving from a debate about whether climate change is happening to what we do about it. I include the United States in that—notably many of the states of the US, which are keen to participate in international action. That is significant. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that it is clear from all the reading that I have done so far that there is an effort right across Government—not only from the top, with the Prime Minister and the new Foreign Secretary, but from my Department—to ensure that the international agenda remains absolutely central to what we do while not neglecting the fact that our domestic performance and international clout are linked.

Peter Ainsworth: I welcome the new Secretary of State to his post and wish him well. He joins the Department at an exciting and challenging time. I very much hope that we will be able to forge a constructive relationship. He will know that I think it important that we work together as much as possible in facing the threat of climate change.
	May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that his first task should be to restore confidence in his own Department? There have been too many missed targets and too many arguments lost with other Departments. When it should be at the centre of our efforts to tackle climate change, DEFRA has found itself marginalised on the energy review and on the environmental impact of house building, undermined on the impacts of aviation and undermined by the Department of Trade and Industry in European discussions on carbon reduction. He says that there are people above his pay grade. Let him not be daunted by those people. Let him speak up for the things that DEFRA is charged with looking after and let him restore confidence in the Department. How is he going to set about doing that?

David Miliband: I am happy to respond to the challenge. I will speak up as necessary, both inside and outside Government. If we can forge a consensus and if the new model Conservative party wants to see the light, I welcome it to the consensus table.

Gregory Barker: We are there.

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that they are there. Coming from a party that has been outside the mainstream of politics for the past 15 years, I think that he has got a bit to learn.

Biomass

Peter Bone: If he will make a statement on Government policy on the use of biomass to meet the UK's energy needs.

Peter Soulsby: What steps the Government are taking to encourage the development of energy from biomass.

Ian Pearson: The Government acknowledge that biomass is an important contributor to renewable energy, with potential applications in heat, electricity, combined heat and power and transport. The Government's response to the biomass taskforce report was published on 27 April and sets out a range of actions to help realise optimum use of biomass as a resource.

Peter Bone: I understand that a biomass plant needs between 40 and 50 large lorries to go in and out of the site each day with the raw material required to produce the biomass energy. Has the Minister made an assessment of the advantage to the environment of biomass as against the clear disadvantage of those lorry movements?

Ian Pearson: As the hon. Gentleman would expect, the Government regularly look at these issues, making cost-benefit analyses and evaluating different policy proposals. Biomass can play an important part in reaching our renewables targets. The biomass taskforce estimates it has the potential to supply 6 per cent. of our electricity needs by 2020. Only last week, I went round Talbott's in Stafford, which is a world leader in producing biomass power plant. A lot can be done with these resources, and it is important to look at the whole environmental picture, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says.

Peter Soulsby: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, and I welcome the Government's positive response to Sir Ben Gill's biomass taskforce. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister's recent speech apparently embracing a new generation of nuclear power stations reinforces the vital need for DEFRA to address the widespread ignorance, both inside and outside the Government, of the potential of biomass to offer significant energy and carbon savings? Does he also acknowledge the need for his Department to demonstrate to colleagues in Government that biomass and other renewable sources, taken together, can provide a viable alternative to new nuclear power stations?

Ian Pearson: First, let us be clear about the Prime Minister's comments. He was referring to the fact that, if present policy remains unchanged, we shall become heavily dependent on imported gas, moving from being 80 to 90 per cent. self-reliant to being 80 to 90 per cent. dependent. He said that that meant that the replacement of nuclear power stations, along with a big push towards renewables and a step change in energy efficiency, engaging businesses and consumers, were all back on the agenda. The energy review is looking at all those issues and it will come up with a balanced result. Biomass can be part of the overall picture. Sir Ben Gill's report says that it has the potential to provide 6 per cent. of our energy needs by 2020, and that is very much to be welcomed. The figure is only 1 per cent. at the moment, so we have a long way to go if we are to achieve that, but important developments are taking place with biomass and biofuels that give us optimism for the future.

Gregory Campbell: May I, on behalf of my colleagues, associate myself with the sympathies that have been expressed on the passing of Eric Forth? He was a colourful character in more ways than one, and he will be sadly missed.
	A few weeks ago, the energy and environment fund was established in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister think that it would be a good idea if a percentage of that fund, and of similar funds that might be established across the United Kingdom, were used to support and promote the development of biomass energy?

Ian Pearson: I know that the situation is different in Northern Ireland and that a lot of work has been done there on the production of short rotation coppice willow, for example. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that John Gilliland, a valued member of the Sustainable Development Commission, has pioneered this work on his farm in Derry. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that funding is available in Northern Ireland, as it is in England, Wales and Scotland, and it is right that the Government should give this new technology every encouragement. I am sure that, as biomass becomes more established, the market for it will grow and welcome improvements in cost-efficiency will help the renewable energy market to prosper.

Eric Illsley: May I also associate myself with the remarks of other hon. Members about Eric Forth?
	My hon. Friend the Minister makes all the right noises about biomass, but the complete opposite is happening on the ground. Hon. Members might have seen the hysterical scare stories I yesterday's newspapers about the amount of carbon dioxide being released from Drax power station. Up to April, however, the power station was co-firing coal with biomass up to a rate of 25 per cent. However, the regulations that were imposed from 1 April this year have reduced the biomass element of the co-firing to 15 per cent. Will my hon. Friend look again at those regulations, to see whether we can increase the levels permitted in co-firing, or move to complete biomass firing?

Ian Pearson: The Government have looked at co-firing recently, but as part of my new brief I am more than happy to look at it again. I pay tribute to the hard work of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who I know is widely respected on both sides of the House for the work that he has done in this area.
	The important point to make about biomass is that energy crops have enormous benefits not just for biomass projects for co-firing power stations and for biomass combined heat and power plant, but in terms of biofuels. A lot more can be done in that area. The renewable transport fuel obligation will be an important driver in encouraging the growth of bioenergy crops.

Alan Whitehead: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the level of biomass in the residual waste stream in industry and in the domestic sector. In addition to investigating rules on the level of biomass that may be engaged in co-firing, what investigation has he undertaken into the potential for existing power stations to co-fire biomass-rich material from the residual waste stream after it has been processed as a suitable fuel?

Ian Pearson: I take my hon. Friend's point. I understand that that was considered as part of the biomass taskforce report, but I will certainly look into his point; perhaps I may write to him on it.

John MacDougall: Does my hon. Friend agree that another by-product of biomass is the opportunity for high-energy-consuming industries to give themselves a longer-term future by considering biomass as an alternative energy source? That is the case in my constituency of Glenrothes, where Tullis Russell is trying to process such ideas. One of the main difficulties is gaining access to the national grid, which takes an extraordinary amount of time compared with the time it takes to get the initiative developed. Therefore, a gap exists, which is unhealthy and discouraging to the initiative taking place. Will he consider those points in due course?

Ian Pearson: There are a number of points about grid access and access charges that are important and which we are looking at as part of our future policy on biomass, but my hon. Friend is right to point out that there is a growing industry here and growing interest in biomass. There is also an interest from growers in growing energy crops, whether it be Miscanthus or short rotation coppice willow. We need to ensure that we can help to drive the market in those renewable energy projects. The introduction of new building regulations from April this year, as well as new procedures and tougher standards as part of that, can be helpful in getting more companies and public sector organisations to consider biomass energy part of their energy solutions.

Recycling

Ann Winterton: What proportion of the waste collected under local authority recycling schemes was exported in the latest period for which figures are available.

Ben Bradshaw: As a former Deputy Leader of the House, I associate myself with the warm tributes paid to Eric Forth. The exchanges at business questions between Eric and my late friend and colleague Robin Cook were among the most memorable since I have been a Member of the House.
	I have to tell the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) that the figures she seeks are not available centrally. However, all exported waste must be of high quality and must be recycled at its destination. Those rules are strictly enforced by the Environment Agency.

Ann Winterton: Putting aside the issue of plastic waste and what the United Kingdom will do if the high demands made by China and the high prices paid change, as well as whether we will be able to cope with that, is the Minister not aware that the Environment Agency has reported that about half the 8 million tonnes of green-bin waste collected each year in the UK has been exported and that 500 tonnes have been shipped unsorted to Indonesia, which will be dumped in that country because it does not have adequate recycling facilities of its own? What will he do about that scandal and to reassure those of us in the UK who are keen on recycling?

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the challenge posed by plastics. As a country, however, we are increasing our domestic capacity to recycle plastics. Two big companies, Coca-Cola and Marks & Spencer, have recently introduced recycled plastics into their bottles and other packaging. On the export of waste, her figures are not quite right. The 50 per cent. figure that she quotes is an Environment Agency estimate relating to paper. She is right that there is a big foreign market for paper and plastics, which should not be derided—it is good that there are markets for recycled products, because it is better to use those than virgin products. The Environment Agency takes its responsibilities seriously and, as she probably also knows, is bringing several prosecutions on the issue to which she refers.

Gregory Barker: I also pay tribute to the former right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who was a master of this House of Commons. If anyone deserves to be remembered as a true parliamentarian, it is Eric.
	We still recycle far less than most other major European countries. In every year since Labour took office, the amount of waste produced by the nation has continued to grow. We have had endless short-term waste initiatives, but we still seem not to be making the substantial progress that we need. The Minister has recently taken over responsibility for this issue. Can he tell us something that we have not heard before about it?

Ben Bradshaw: I can tell the hon. Gentleman something that I have said on several occasions that he obviously has not heard: recycling has trebled since this Government took over from the previous Government. The previous Government's figures were appalling. Our new waste strategy envisages a further doubling of recycling to 50 per cent. by 2020. That is a far better record than the Conservatives ever had.

Grocery Market

Danny Alexander: What discussions he has had with the Department of Trade and Industry regarding the Competition Commission investigation of the grocery market.

Ben Bradshaw: There have been several discussions among Ministers and with the Office of Fair Trading about this matter. Now that an inquiry has been announced, we will write to the Competition Commission to suggest that its investigation should include the impact of supermarket buyer power on the long-term viability of suppliers and producers in the UK. In the meantime, my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State has written today to the supermarkets inviting them for talks on how we can improve further the sustainability of the food chain.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and to hear that his Department is taking action to draw to the attention of the OFT and Competition Commission the many complaints that farmers have made about the way in which supermarkets deal with their suppliers. Will he also make clear in his representations the importance that Members of the House attach to the role of small shops in rural communities and in larger centres such as Inverness, where the increasing dominance of supermarkets is having such a dramatic impact? If the Competition Commission can take action to protect and enhance the position of consumers, farmers and small shops, it will do a great deal to boost the sustainability of rural communities.

Ben Bradshaw: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome for my remarks. He is right that the Competition Commission is free to consider the impact on small shops, and I think that it has already indicated that the concern that he expressed will form part of its inquiry.

Eric Martlew: Is the Minister aware that Tesco plans to build a second massive store in my constituency, which will destroy a local shopping area and create massive traffic congestion? When I expressed doubts about it, I was attacked by Tesco's propaganda machine. Is not the reality that Tesco is changing from a giant into a monster?

Ben Bradshaw: I am sure that my hon. Friend is a big enough man to take on the Tesco propaganda machine. It would be improper for me to comment on an individual planning application, although I remind him that the Government have changed the planning guidance to make it more difficult to build out-of-town supermarkets of the type to which he refers. I was also pleased this week to see the major supermarkets, including Tesco, almost falling over each other in an attempt to prove their green credentials—not unrelated, I think, to the Government's recent publication of our new sustainable food and farming policy.

Elfyn Llwyd: I associate myself fully with the remarks about the late Eric Forth. He was truly formidable in the House and a great parliamentarian. I am sure that he will be missed throughout the House.
	I also associate myself with those who have welcomed the forthcoming report. Will the OFT's remit include thinking again about whether supermarkets should benefit from advantageous commercial rates? Currently they are favoured in comparison with those in the smaller sector in terms of the rate that they pay per sq ft.

Ben Bradshaw: Those are issues for the Competition Commission. As I told the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander), we in the Department have written to the commission expressing some of our concerns, but any Member or organisation is free to write to it suggesting matters that it should look into. It is important for the competition authorities to be independent and not part of Government.

Single Farm Payments

Brooks Newmark: What proportion of single farm payments to farmers in Essex have been paid.

David Miliband: As I explained earlier, the single payment scheme is being administered nationally, so information is not collected on claims from farmers in particular counties.
	For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, who was not present earlier, I can announce that by 15 May some 76 per cent. of the 120,000 claimants to the 2005 scheme had received just over 86 per cent. of the estimated available funds.

Brooks Newmark: I join others in paying tribute to Eric Forth. As a relatively new Member, I always appreciated Eric's experience, advice and guidance.
	My constituent Mr. Christopher Hill is one of 5,000 farmers who have been notified by the Rural Payments Agency that they will not receive an 80 per cent. payment to alleviate short-term cashflow problems. Why have some farmers received their part-payments while others have not?

David Miliband: I do not want to be too hard on the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that one piece of advice that Eric Forth would have given him would be to read written statements and attend the whole of Question Time. If he had read my written statement last week, he would have seen the explanation: there were 5,000 particularly complex cases in which partial payment was not possible, but we had given priority to ensuring that those cases were dealt with properly. If he had been here earlier, he would have heard me say that the number of cases is no longer 5,000, but is now 3,700. I am not sure whether Mr. Hill is among the remaining 1,300, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that sorting out those farmers' problems is the RPA's top priority.

David Curry: The Minister said earlier that he wished to draw conclusions from our recent problems.

David Miliband: Lessons.

David Curry: Would an early lesson be that introducing the most complex scheme on offer in the shortest time on offer against a background of tens of thousands of new claimants, a reorganised administration and problems in the IT system represents a decision in search of a disaster? Will the Minister therefore undertake to establish a rule in his Department, now that he is in charge of it, ensuring that he will introduce no new scheme until he is absolutely certain that he is capable of delivering it and that the systems for that purpose have been tested and tried?

David Miliband: Since I have been a Minister I have had the good fortune to follow the right hon. Gentleman into a number of Departments. I believe that he has been a Minister in most of the Departments in which I have served, and he was a distinguished Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The lesson that he has drawn is one that we will consider, among others that are put to us, during our reflections on the difficulties of 2005.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

David Tredinnick: What steps he is taking to reduce UK food miles and their contribution to carbon dioxide emissions in the UK.

Ian Pearson: The food industry sustainability strategy, published last month, challenges the food industry to reduce the external costs associated with its domestic food transportation, including those arising from carbon emissions, by about 20 per cent. by 2012. An industry-led champions group, including other stakeholders, is being established to implement it.

David Tredinnick: That was a disappointing reply. Is it not a fact that the number of UK food miles has increased owing to the inexcusable chaos of single farm payments in the Department? Leicestershire farmers are struggling, at the mercy of their bank managers and unable even to pay for fertilisers to make their crops grow. Has that not increased the UK food miles problem? What is the Minister doing to help farmers to distribute UK food through farmers' markets such as the one in Hinckley and the new one that is being set up in Market Bosworth? What is the Department doing to help our farmers?

Ian Pearson: It is stretching a point to breaking-point to say that the single farm payment is responsible for the increase in food miles. We are trying to work closely with the industry to improve resource efficiency, which will enable us to address the food miles problem. Clearly, one issue is people driving to supermarkets and shops to buy their goods, but we must also consider the carbon dioxide emissions produced by HGVs. The more that we can improve efficiency, the better will be the impact on the environment. That is why the champions group has been set up, which we hope will help us to achieve our target of a 20 per cent. reduction by 2012.

James McGovern: May I, too, take this opportunity to offer my condolences to the friends and family of Eric Forth? Although I am one of the newer Members, I did not have to be here long to appreciate his formidable skill as a parliamentarian.
	Does the Minister agree that, just as consumers nowadays choose, if they wish, the food that they buy according to information on the label such as fat content and calorie content, there may well be a case for also including food miles, so that they can make an even more informed choice?

Ian Pearson: I am not sure whether including food miles on the label would be that beneficial. When one reads on a label that the produce's country of origin is Kenya, and that produce is beans, one can draw one's own conclusions. I am very attracted to the idea that we should buy more local produce, and farmers' markets, to which reference has been made, are an extremely worthwhile initiative in that regard. The more that we can buy local and source local, the better will be the impact on the environment.

Single Farm Payments

Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet representatives of the National Farmers Union to discuss single farm payments.

David Miliband: During a visit to Hampshire last week, I met the president of the NFU and we discussed the single farm payment scheme, among other matters. The Minister with responsibility for sustainable farming and food, my noble Friend Lord Rooker—who will be an outstanding DEFRA Minister and a strong voice for the Department in the other place, as its Deputy Leader—will meet NFU representatives for the second time, on 24 May, as part of a regular series of meetings to discuss the single farm payment scheme.

Henry Bellingham: I, too, would like to associate myself with the remarks about Eric Forth.
	Is the Secretary of State aware that some of the returned addressed envelopes sent out by the RPA to various farmers had the wrong post office box number and postcode on them? Is he also aware that a batch of special delivery envelopes were delivered not to the RPA, but to a company called Intelligent Security Solutions? Come to think of it, it might have made a better job of sorting out the contents. Is he further aware that a rumour is going around that some of the RPA staff at Newcastle—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There have been about three supplementary questions already.

David Miliband: I think that the hon. Gentleman was just getting on to coals to Newcastle, Mr. Speaker, so I am sorry that I missed that. I do not know about the case that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but I will be very happy to look into it if he passes me the details.

Philip Dunne: I declare an interest in the single farm payment. The Secretary of State has given us updated figures today on the welcome progress that the RPA is finally achieving in making payments and part-payments. He has talked about those who have received nothing so far, but he has not mentioned the issue that the NFU is talking to me about: those who have received excess payments. I was told as recently as Tuesday of a farmer who was expecting to receive a cheque for £35,000, but who instead received one for £2.1 million. One can imagine his surprise and pleasure on opening his mail that day. Given this shambles, will the Secretary of State please update the House on the penalty regime? I know that the deadline has been extended and that farmers are now expected to get in next year's application forms by 31 May, but will the Secretary of State please extend it further until the shambles has been sorted out?

David Miliband: At the meeting that I had yesterday, it was reported that, of the 63,000 claims that have been made, 19 have been overpaid.

Recycling

Andrew Love: What steps he is planning to take to increase recycling of waste.

Ben Bradshaw: England's revised waste strategy will put forward a range of measures to build on recent improvements in recycling.

Andrew Love: Recently, and without any consultation, my local Tory authority sold off one of its two recycling centres to make a quick buck. It then received a direction from Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, but has continued to try to evade its environmental responsibilities. Does not that call for stronger planning powers to ensure proper recycling and respect for the environment on behalf of local people in my area?

Ben Bradshaw: It may well do. I am sorry that my hon. Friend's local Conservative council has behaved in that way. The party pretends to be green, but it is hardly surprising that when it gets into office it is the old slash and burn Thatcherite Tory party, especially on waste and environmental issues. I will look at the matter he raises, and he is right to say that we need better strategic planning for waste infrastructure in London.

Business of the House

Theresa May: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for the coming week?

Jack Straw: Before announcing the business for the week ahead, I wish to express my sorrow at the sudden death of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). The Conservative party has lost one of its stars and this House has lost a great parliamentarian. He brightened this place with his ties, his waistcoats and his love of country and western music, but above all with his personality. Eric served this Parliament with great distinction in many capacities, including on Committees, on the Speaker's Panel, in the Chamber and holding court in the Tea Room, offering advice to all comers, including myself—and very sage advice it was. But the House will recall particularly with great warmth Eric's weekly encounters with the late Robin Cook, when Robin was Leader of the House and Eric was the shadow Leader of the House. Each sharpened his wit on the other, to the great entertainment and elucidation of the rest of us. Our sympathies and prayers go to Eric's wife, Carroll, his three children, his friends and all his constituents.
	The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 22 May—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Armed Forces Bill.
	Tuesday 23 May—Progress on remaining stages of the Education and Inspections Bill.
	Wednesday 24 May—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Education and Inspections Bill.
	Thursday 25 May—Motion on the Whitsun recess Adjournment.
	The provisional business for the week after the Whitsun recess will include:
	Monday 5 June—Second Reading of the NHS Redress Bill [ Lords].

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for the coming week and I echo the sentiments he expressed about my late right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). It was with deep shock and sadness that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends learned this morning of Eric's untimely death. Eric was a former shadow Leader of the House and his skirmishes each week with the late Robin Cook became legendary. Eric was above all a great parliamentarian, who loved this place and all it stood for. Never a man to pull his punches and not always beloved of the Whips or, dare I say it, Front Benchers, he was a great asset to this House. More than that, many in this House across all parties have lost not only a great colleague, but a friend. The life of this House will be the lesser for his passing. It was a mark of the man and his personality, to which the Leader of the House alluded, that the staff of the Tea Room expressed their tremendous sadness this morning, too. He had been a friend to them, not just to Members of Parliament. We have lost a great parliamentarian and we all mourn his loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Carroll, and his family, friends and constituents.
	I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware of the importance of a good conclusion to the Doha round of world trade talks, not only for this country, but for the whole developing world. May we have a debate on world trade so that we can explore the Government's position and ensure that they are putting sufficient pressure for the right conclusion of this round of trade talks on the European Trade Commissioner?
	This week, it has been announced that 573 jobs will be lost at NHS Direct, in addition to the thousands of jobs being lost in hospitals across the country. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Heath on the future of NHS Direct?
	However, that is not the only part of the NHS that is suffering financial problems. For example, the Thames Valley strategic health authority already gets 21 per cent. less funding than the average, and it has admitted that that has resulted in fewer operations and less patient care. In a presentation to the board last week, the SHA's chief executive revealed that introducing a national standard tariff across the NHS would mean that it would cost Thames Valley PCTs £70 million extra a year to provide the same services—there would be no gain in activity or in the services provided. That is just one example, so it is little wonder that people ask where all the money has gone. Therefore, may we also have a debate on the future funding of NHS trusts and the impact of the standard tariff?
	That is the NHS that the Health Secretary said had had its best year ever—where on earth has she been? But that is not the only area where the Government are in denial. The head of the civil service has said of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's work on asylum that it has "been performing particularly well", and the Prime Minster wrote to the incoming Home Secretary advising him to "continue and accelerate" the success of the Government's immigration and asylum policies.
	That is the same Home Office where only 16 per cent. of officials have confidence in senior management. The director of enforcement and renewals at the immigration and nationality directorate was asked by the Home Affairs Committee how many people were in Britain illegally. He said:
	"I haven't the faintest idea".
	When asked how many people had been removed when all their appeal processes had been exhausted, he said:
	"We don't track individual cases".
	Therefore, can we have a debate on the chaos in the Government's prisons and immigration polices?
	Perhaps that is why, in a recent speech, the Prime Minister revealed that he was asking the Chancellor to examine how the Treasury could be involved in ensuring the protection and security of the public. When asked if that meant that the Home Secretary would have to refer to the Chancellor before making any decisions, the Downing street spokesman said:
	"No. The Home Secretary and the Chancellor will have a normal relationship".
	Presumably, that will be in contrast to the relationship between the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. Up until now, the Chancellor has been the roadblock to reform, so can we have a debate in his future role in public sector reform?
	Finally, in an article in the  Eastern Daily Press, the sacked former Home Secretary said of the recent reshuffle:
	"I thought the point was to give a clear sense of redirection for the Government but, in the end, it hasn't worked out like that."
	So the former Home Secretary says that the Government lack direction, the Health Secretary is in denial, and the Home Office is in meltdown—no wonder this is a Government in paralysis.

Jack Straw: I shall deal in turn with the points raised by the right hon. Lady. We are doing a great deal to apply pressure where that is required, as I can confirm from my five years as Foreign Secretary. We took the lead in the EU in pushing for an end to unacceptably high and restrictive subsidies to farmers across Europe. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary used to be Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and was in the lead in negotiating the deal on the future of the common agricultural policy.
	In addition, we are also pushing the US and other key partners in the Doha round, and especially the much larger states from the non-aligned movement, such as India and Brazil. Those states must also make some movement, and especially in respect of non-agricultural market access. I assure the shadow Leader of the House that there will be an opportunity to debate these matters in the regular six-monthly debate due to take place just before the European Council in mid-June. That will be a full day's debate, and I hope that she and the rest of the House will take that opportunity to discuss the matters that she has raised and other key foreign policy issues coming up before the Council, such as Iraq, Iran and the funding of Hamas.
	The right hon. Lady asks about the health service. She is not correct in claiming that thousands of people will lose their jobs under changes in NHS funding. She asks where the money has gone. It has gone, first, on dramatic increases in the number of clinical staff in the health service. Overall, there has been an increase of 85,000 in the total number of nurses in the health service, including an increase of nearly 3,000 in the health area covering her constituency.
	Secondly, the money has gone on ensuring that nurses and other clinical staff are better paid. The number of nurses has increased by well over a quarter since 1997 and, alongside that, the pay of nurses, in real terms after inflation, has also increased by over a quarter.
	Thirdly, the money has gone on new hospital buildings, to an astonishing degree, including in my constituency and in most constituencies in the country. Fourthly, it has gone on equipment. That is why there are difficulties with the health service—there always will be—but overall, on the question of whether the health service is doing the job for which the taxpayer is paying, yes it is, which is why levels of patient satisfaction are higher and why overall, on any measure, patients are receiving better care faster, and mortality and morbidity rates all show improvement.
	The right hon. Lady asks about asylum and immigration. Asylum numbers are significantly lower than when we came into office in 1997. I have every reason to remember the catastrophic record of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who had ordered a computer system, failed to finance it properly and, at a time when numbers of asylum seekers were rising, slashed by 1,200 the number of staff in the immigration and nationality department dealing with asylum seekers. On top of that, he had declared an amnesty in which 30,000 of those people were allowed to stay in the country without further proper inquiry.
	Numbers are now down, and we have passed the tipping point where the numbers leaving the country are higher than the numbers applying to stay. We have reduced the time taken to process applications from20 months to about two months.
	On the number of illegal asylum seekers, the Prime Minister reminded the House yesterday of the following:
	"'There are no official estimates of the number of illegal immigrants into the United Kingdom. By its very nature, illegal immigration is difficult to measure and any estimates would be highly speculative.'"—[ Official Report, 17 May 2006; Vol. 446,c. 991.]
	That is what the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe said in 1995. There are slightly better estimates these days, following work by Professor Salt for the research and information directorate of the Home Office, who estimated that the total number of people who are wholly illegal was between 310,000 and 500,000. Those are not asylum seekers; we know how many asylum seekers there are.
	I am glad to see the shadow Home Secretary sitting next to the right hon. Lady. Whatever other promises he makes at the next election about how life will be so much better when he becomes Home Secretary—that every prisoner will become compliant, every criminal will stop committing crime and, probably much easier to achieve, that there will be no illegal immigrants because they will be scared off by the disaster of the Conservative Government—I strongly advise him not to claim that he will be able to produce an accurate estimate of the total number of illegal immigrants. That would be very unwise, as he knows. Why? Because people who are wholly illegally in this country, as in every other country, have escaped immigration control and thus, by definition, do not appear on any database. No country in the world has accurate figures for wholly illegal immigration: not the United States and not the country held up as having the greatest and most efficient system of law and order in Europe—if not the highest respect for human rights—namely, France. The French have hundreds of thousands of people who are "sans papiers." They do not know the numbers and they do not take much interest in them.

Anne Moffat: I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows that the Government have done an awful lot to recognise the tremendous contribution of our war veterans. As we approach veterans day, will he use his good offices to ensure that we reward the land army and the Bevin boys?

Jack Straw: Yes, I will certainly use my good offices in that respect and talk immediately to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister with responsibility for veterans.

David Heath: From these Benches, may we join the tributes to Eric Forth? Business questions was his natural stage, and one on which he always excelled. Even at his most provocative, he was never less than entertaining and never less than perceptive. No one was ever in any doubt what Eric Forth thought about anything, and behind the undoubted style there was real substance. He was an ornament to the House, and he will be sorely missed.
	May we have an urgent debate on nuclear power in this country? It is clearly no good waiting for the results of the energy review, because the Prime Minister has transparently decided to pre-empt the results of that review. Therefore, given the reservations that have been expressed, quite openly, by a former Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the fact that the Treasury has said that the costs are likely to be eye-wateringly large, is it not time that the whole House had an opportunity to debate the matter?
	If and when orders are introduced for the regionalisation of police forces—given the difficulties that have been experienced over recent days in Wales, that may not happen—can they be brought before the whole House, so that all hon. Members have the opportunity to raise the issues that are relevant to our constituencies?
	It was two weeks ago, I think, that the Government was reshuffled, but still no list of ministerial responsibilities is available. Can the Leader of the House sort that out? We apparently now know what the Deputy Prime Minister is doing, but it would be nice to see which Ministers feel that they have which responsibilities, so that we can perhaps hold them to account rather better than we would otherwise.
	Lastly, may we have a debate on the Human Rights Act 1998? Two weeks ago, the problem was the then Home Secretary; now it seems that everything is down to the exercise of the Human Rights Act. Frankly, the Prime Minister has been saying some very silly things about that Act over recent weeks. Given that some of us believe that the finest achievement of the Leader of the House, when he was Home Secretary, was to introduce the Human Rights Act, may we have a debate to defend the reputation of that Act and of the right hon. Gentleman?

Jack Straw: On nuclear power, I cannot promise when there will be a debate on the issue, but the energy review will be published and then, in due course, there will be a debate on this country's future energy needs, including the role that nuclear power should play. Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that people forget that nuclear energy currently plays an extraordinarily important part in energy generation. It accounts for 75 —[ Interruption ]—terra-watt hours. I am learning.

Richard Benyon: Explain!

Jack Straw: I am very happy to explain, but afterwards. That is 20 per cent. of total electricity generation. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) will know that, because of the decline in North sea production of gas in particular and oil, unless we take other steps to rebalance the generation of energy, including nuclear power, we will become quite unnecessarily reliant on overseas sources of energy. He will also know that the idea that renewables could possibly replace the loss of generating capacity from nuclear power is simply not the case. Even in a country such as Germany that has huge numbers of wind farms—far more than I think would ever be found acceptable here; its generation of electricity by wind is only a third of that generated by nuclear power in this country.
	On the regionalisation of police forces, the orders will go through the House in the normal way. I cannot recall the procedure exactly, but I think that many of them will be taken upstairs. On the reorganisation of police forces, I know, as a former Home Secretary—everybody in the House knows it—there is simply no necessary connection between the efficiency of a police service, the degree to which the service is delivered at a local level and the overall size of the constabulary. Moreover, the current boundaries were in effect settled following the royal commission report on the police in the early 1960s. Forty years on is not too short a time to reconfigure police force boundaries to take account of the dramatic changes in our social structure in the meantime.
	On a list of ministerial responsibilities, there are in the Library of the House and available on the website letters that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has sent to each departmental Minister setting out responsibilities. The detailed list of ministerial responsibilities will be published in the normal way. However, having watched oral questions every day since I became Leader of the House, I cannot say that the absence of the list has caused any difficulty whatsoever to either Ministers or Members.
	On the Human Rights Act, the hon. Gentleman says that it was the finest thing that I ever did as Home Secretary. If he does not mind, I would like to say that it is one of the finest of a long list. Future historians of the Home Office may say that the finest thing that I ever did as Home Secretary was to survive four years.

Desmond Swayne: We have been here four years since you got up.

Jack Straw: Five.
	There needs to be a proper debate about the Human Rights Act. That is what we are proposing. Following 11 September, the circumstances today are very different from those anticipated at the time of the passage of the Act. There are some who say that the Human Rights Act is a problem; there are others who say its interpretation is a problem. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater, but look sensibly—which is what the Prime Minister wants—at how the Act is working and whether it or its interpretation should be changed.

Chris Mullin: Might we find time to debate the extent to which the tabloid virus is beginning to infect BBC television news? Has the Leader of the House noticed that newscasters increasingly no longer read news to camera, but walk around the studio like a couple of ham actors emoting? I think that it is called news with attitude. Did he notice that last night's 6 o'clock television news was cynically edited to delete the fact that the Prime Minister, inhis reply to the right hon. Member for Witney(Mr. Cameron), quoted the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)? That had to be reinstated—no doubt after complaints—in the 10 o'clock news bulletin. Does he agree that if the BBC cannot do better than that, it is going to have difficult, justifying its licence fee?

Jack Straw: Editorial decisions of the BBC are for the BBC and, to make a serious point, cannot be for the House. However, I will make sure that my hon. Friend's remarks are passed on. On the issue of whether newscasters should prance around studios or sit at a desk and read the news—that is what it seems to me they are paid for, and paid too much—personally I prefer the latter to the former. On the issue of accuracy, all journalists, including those at the BBC, have a responsibility to ensure that quotations are attributed accurately.

John Horam: As Eric Forth's neighbouring MP in Bromley, may I just say a few words in addition to the very fine tributes by the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House? As they have said, he will be mainly remembered as a stout defender of the role of the House of Commons and a great House of Commons man. Not everyone in the House may realise, as I did as his neighbour, that, in many ways, he was an old softie at heart. The comments made by the shadow Leader of the House about the reaction in the Tea Room reinforced that. He was a very good neighbour to me and when I faced some difficulty in the last general election, he was the first to come and help out. He was there early in the morning; no nonsense, getting on with it and saying, "I will deliver anything you want." The House may like to know that, in Bromley, he was regarded with great affection, as well as great respect, for an outstanding independence of spirit. He will be greatly missed.

Jack Straw: Allow me to say that we all share in the hon. Gentleman's tribute. As Eric's neighbour, he has good reason to know of the affection in which Eric was held by his constituents, as well as by the House.

Keith Vaz: May I associate myself fully with all the eloquent tributes that have been paid to the late Eric Forth? He will be greatly missed.
	May we have a debate, as a matter of urgency, on the decision of the local health authority in Leicester to cut £161 million from the pathway project? Although I accept everything that the Leader of the House has said about the amount of money that has gone into the health service in Leicester, both the Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) and I, in our last manifestos, specifically mentioned the amount of money to be spent on refurbishing our three hospitals. That is now going to be cut, which will mean that the hospitals cannot be refurbished. May we please have an urgent debate on this important issue?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend has put the position of the NHS in Leicester in context. There has been a significant improvement in funding in Leicestershire. The number of nurses is up 1,600 in the health authority area, there are nearly 700 more doctors, including 250 more consultants, and a lot of capital investment. I cannot promise him a debate on the Floor of the House, but there are many opportunities to raise the matter on the Adjournment, including in Westminster Hall, and I hope that he will take them. As his next-door neighbour, I am sure that the Secretary of State for Health is fully aware of the issue; indeed, I know that she is.

Peter Robinson: I associate myself with the many tributes to the late Eric Forth. He had a great love of and respect for this House and he will be missed by us all; especially those of us who sat within hearing range of his occasional sedentary comments.
	May I give the Leader of the House an opportunity to distinguish himself above those who have previously held his office by addressing an issue that has yet to be satisfactorily addressed as far as the Northern Ireland Grand Committee is concerned? It appears that there are one or two Members—perhaps three—who are vetoing the idea of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee meeting in Northern Ireland. A meeting of the Grand Committee is being arranged. Will the Leader of the House use his influence to ensure that it takes place in the Province?

Jack Straw: I will indeed use my good offices in that respect to see what can be done to ensure that there is a venue for the Grand Committee in Northern Ireland. I thank the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for, as I understand it, attending the recent British-Irish Parliamentary Union. I accept the point that he makes and I will pursue it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Sally Keeble: May I also associate myself with the tributes to the late Mr. Forth?
	May I ask my right hon. Friend about the case involving the death of a young boy in a secure training centre and the inability to raise that matter in the House because of a two-year delay in holding the inquest? There are indications now that the inquest may be put off until next year and there are unconfirmed reports of a further serious incident in a secure training centre. Will he look into the continuing lack of effective scrutiny in this place of that important subject?

Jack Straw: Yes, and I understand the distress that has been caused to that young person's family, but also to my hon. Friend and her constituents more widely. There is a problem about the procedure relating to coroners. There is a Coroners Bill, which I think is currently before the other place. It will not solve all the problems, but it should solve many. It will modernise the coroners system. I know from my experience as Home Secretary just how traumatic such cases can be and, of course, I will discuss the matter further with her.

Owen Paterson: May I also associate myself with the previous comments about Eric Forth? He was a most independent-minded Member and a splendid example to us all.
	I appreciate the fact that the new Leader of the House bothers to attend debates and statements. He came to the Opposition day health debate and noted my disgust that the Secretary of State for Health refuses to grapple with the situation in Shropshire in which early-stage breast cancer sufferers with Cheshire, Staffordshire or Welsh addresses can get Herceptin on the NHS paid out of their taxes, while those with a Shropshire address have to pay £47,000. I have raised the matter on several occasions at business questions. Will the Leader of the House please try to get the Secretary of State to come to the Chamber and answer questions directly, or, even better, effect a meeting between me and the Secretary of State? We now have the horror of breast cancer sufferers being camped out overnight at the primary care trust offices. The situation is dreadful and, in a civilised society such as ours, intolerable, so I would be most grateful if the new Leader of the House would intervene on it.

Jack Straw: As the hon. Gentleman mentions, I was indeed present for the Opposition day debate on the health service. I listened carefully to the opening speeches made by the Opposition spokesman and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. The hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the way in which my right hon. Friend responded to the question are not justified. As I sat next to her, she tried to address the difficult issue. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and that of his constituents, and I think that there is about to be some clarification on Herceptin. However, if I am wrong about that, I will of course write to him and put a note about that in the Library.
	Everyone in the House has to recognise that when new drugs are developed or are specific to not only conditions such as cancer, but certain stages of cancers, there will be fine judgments to be made about when and where they ought to be used. I think that that is the problem with respect to Herceptin, but that said, and although I think that the hon. Gentleman's criticism was uncalled for, I will discuss the matter further with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

David Drew: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has been following with interest the demutualisation of Standard Life. If, like me, he is a member, he will have been inundated with pro-demutualisation material. The ballot makes a local authority stock transfer look positively balanced and objective. Is it not about time that having set standards for the asset lock, the House has the opportunity to debate such demutualisations so that there is balance in the way in which they are performed?

Jack Straw: I do not think that I am a member of Standard Life—I am sure that I would know if I was—but I have been a member of other mutual societies, so I entirely recognise what my hon. Friend is saying. I accept, too, his case that there ought to be a better balance. I know of his distinguished record as a member of the Co-operative party, and I will raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Malcolm Rifkind: I agree with what has been said about Eric Forth. He was an awkward customer and if he was here today, he would undoubtedly be the one person who would dissent from the otherwise unanimous enthusiasm for his achievements in the House.
	Will the Leader of the House confirm that it is quite remarkable that a year after the general election, we have yet to have a debate on the Floor of the House about Iraq? That is a country in which British troops continue to die and it poses for the Government their greatest foreign policy dilemma, so, recognising that he will no longer have to reply to such a debate, will he show a little more enthusiasm about having one?

Jack Straw: As a matter of fact, I was very enthusiastic about having such a debate. As I told the House last week, I was putting in requests to the former Leader of the House for a debate on Iraq, Iran and the middle east more generally. Iraq has been discussed on the Floor of the House on many occasions, although, as far as I recall, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct in saying that a formal debate on Iraq has not been flagged up over the past year. There will be an opportunity next week further to discuss Iraq in the context of the Armed Forces Bill. As I said in reply to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), there will be another opportunity to discuss it in the middle of June in the debate on the European Council. As Iraq will be before the Council, I believe that it will be entirely in order to debate it at length.

Rob Marris: One of the biggest challenges facing the United Kingdom and the world is climate change. Under the UN framework convention on climate change, the UK has a commitment to mitigate emissions and make progress on adaptation—dealing with effects. The Government have a good and enviable record on mitigating emissions, but their record on dealing with effects and adapting to the inevitable climate change that is coming is, frankly, woeful. We have done almost nothing to adapt to the situation. Greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect have been known about for more than 30 years and the European Union is to produce a Green Paper on the matter by the end of the year, but we are in danger of fiddling while the world burns. May we have a debate by the end of October, bearing in the mind the EU deadline, on dealing with the effects of climate change?

Jack Straw: We have just had Environment questions, but I will do my best to ensure that there is a debate by the end of October—my hon. Friend seems to make a reasonable request. However, I resist his criticism of our record. I cannot recall any Government in the industrialised world who have been more in the lead on trying to tackle climate change than the British Government. Our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put the matter right at the top of the G8 agenda, not because it was an easy subject or comfortable for other G8 partners, but precisely because the subject was difficult and he believed that all G8 partners needed to do more on climate change—he actually forced them to do so. I could give my hon. Friend all the numbers. He said that we have cut emissions. Our scheme reduced emissions by 1.5 million tonnes between 2002 and 2004. However, this is an international problem. Even if we were to abolish our emissions altogether, without international action by other parties, including, especially, the United States, China and India, we would be making only a marginal contribution. We are in the lead and the matter is a profound priority for the Government.

Peter Bone: All Prime Ministers who have been in office for many years become worn out, start to make mistakes, blame other people, start to fire their senior colleagues and lose touch with reality. Would the Leader of the House favour rushing through legislation to put a maximum term limit on a Prime Minister of nine years?

Jack Straw: No. That would be a bad career move for the Prime Minister, and suggesting it would be a much worse career move for the Leader of the House. The hon. Gentleman's knowledge of history is slightly defective. Plenty of successful Prime Ministers have indeed gone on and on and on.

Jim Devine: Will my right hon. Friend set time aside to discuss counterfeit drugs? My constituency has the main transporter of drugs to the Scottish health service, pharmacies and hospitals. I was shocked last week to find out that there are 2,400 sites on the internet supplying drugs. It is reckoned that 80 per cent. of those drugs are counterfeit. A man was arrested in London last year who had a lab in his kitchen that was capable of producing 1 million tablets a day. Ten years ago, there were only seven transport companies distributing drugs throughout the United Kingdom, but today there are more than 400. It is very easy to set up such a company. One pays £1,500 for a licence and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House has got the gist of the argument.

Jack Straw: The illegal production of illicit drugs and the counterfeit production of drugs that are otherwise lawful is a serious problem. I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised it and I, in turn, will raise it with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health and the Home Secretary.

David Howarth: May I bring the Leader of the House back to the subject of nuclear power, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)? The need for an urgent debate on the subject was illustrated by the right hon. Gentleman's answer, in which he managed to ignore microgeneration and energy efficiency measures, both of which would be interfered with by a decision to go nuclear. Will he comment on the view that seems to be coming from Downing street that that vastly important and potentially dangerous change in energy policy might be achieved without primary legislation? Will he ensure not only that there is a full debate in the House on the change, but that the House has an opportunity to vote on it?

Jack Straw: The legislative base for any increase in nuclear generating capacity will of course be clear, but there is little point in the House wasting its time legislating in respect of powers that already exist. It is a classic Liberal Democratic approach: never mind the demands for new laws that are needed; let us debate laws that are not needed. There will of course be debates on the energy review and the White Paper when it is published.
	The hon. Gentleman represents Cambridge, which is one of the key bases of this country's scientific establishment, where much of the work on nuclear energy was developed—

David Howarth: And renewables.

Jack Straw: And renewables. I have to say that I would find the Liberal Democrats' claims that they oppose all nuclear and want only renewables more convincing if, at local level, they were more consistent in respect of planning permission for wind farms. I recollect that they oppose almost all planning applications for wind farms and for developments of other renewable sources of energy.

Jim Sheridan: As a fellow Scot, I associate myself with all the comments on the late Eric Forth. If there is life after death, I can look forward to enjoying exchanges with him and the late Robin Cook.
	A former Member of this House who is still a Member of the other place was given a lengthy prison sentence for acting irresponsibly and endangering people's lives, but when company directors act irresponsibly and not only endanger people's lives, but cause their employees and other people to lose their lives, they are given a paltry fine, which is probably tax deductible. What are the Government doing to end that unfair and inconsistent practice and to right that wrong?

Jack Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. In fact, a quite high level of responsibility is imposed on company directors, and that has increased. Whether we should amend the law in respect of corporate manslaughter is a separate issue, and my hon. Friend may be aware that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has plans to do that. He is considering legislation, but is anxious to ensure that it is fair both to victims and potential victims and to company directors.

Nicholas Soames: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his handsome and generous tribute to my right hon. Friend the late Eric Forth? As others have said, the important thing about Eric Forth is that he was deadly serious about defending the rights and freedoms that over the generations this House has hard won from over-mighty Executives, and he believed, rightly, that we should do that better. We shall genuinely miss him.
	The Leader of the House will, I am sure, have heard that I am to chair a big public meeting in East Grinstead tomorrow night as part of the formal consultation on the Government's wicked plan to impose excess further housing in the south-east of England. Does he agree that, by any stretch of the imagination, the scale of the developments is clearly in breach of the Government's own benchmark for sustainability? Given the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) yesterday in his urgent question on the water supply, and given the inadequacy of the roads and railways and the fact that public services in the area are extremely overstretched, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that we in this House have a chance to debate the infrastructure's inability to keep up with the Government's plans for increased house building in the south of England, particularly in Mid-Sussex?

Jack Straw: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his tribute in respect of Eric Forth. The reason why the tributes have been so full is that Eric Forth cared about this place. In my judgment, caring about Parliament is not a matter of sentiment; it is absolutely fundamental to the working of our democracy and to good government.
	Of course I had heard that the hon. Gentleman is to speak at the meeting tomorrow night. I am pleased to say that the news had even reached Blackburn, and I believe that train reservations are in hand.
	I noticed a flicker of a smile cross the hon. Gentleman's lips as he described the plans as "wicked". Let me say to him and to other Members—particularly Opposition Members—who represent rural and suburban constituencies in the south-east that nothing would please Environment Ministers more than if no plans were necessary to increase the number of available houses in the south-east. The truth is, however, that demand for housing in the south-east greatly exceeds supply. I wish that many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents would recognise the attractions of the north-west, including my Blackburn constituency, and move there, but they are not going to. The choice for the Government, for him, for his local authority and for every other Member of the House is between allowing a dramatic and continuing increase in house prices to squeeze out the very people who need to live in those areas, and ensuring a sensible increase in housing so that prices decrease and those who live in those areas are able to stay there. That is the choice, and the debate is not helped by the use of extravagant adjectives. Every house in the country was new at one time.

Nicholas Winterton: Eric Forth was a close personal friend and I am deeply distressed by his early passing. Hon. Members right across the House have rightly paid generous tribute to him, and that is well merited. May I ask the Leader of the House, who gave a most generous personal tribute, to arrange a debate on how the authority of this House and the authority of the Government and the Executive might be rebalanced? There could be no better tribute to the late Eric Forth than to redress the balance between the Executive and Back-Bench Members of the House of Commons.

Jack Straw: I know of the close friendship between the hon. Gentleman and Eric Forth. Both could often be found in the Tea Room talking about over-mighty Governments, particularly during the period of the Major Government.
	The hon. Gentleman, as a former Chairman of the Procedure Committee and a member of the Modernisation Committee, will know that there are many opportunities to debate that subject. He will also know that, in a public session of the Modernisation Committee yesterday, we received evidence from three academics, one of whom made the point that the accountability of Ministers to Parliament had been strengthened significantly in the past 50 years, not least through the introduction 25 years ago of the Select Committee process. I am strongly in favour of improving the accountability, and the perception of accountability, of Ministers, but we must not believe that the position has worsened in the past 50 years when, in fact, it has got significantly better.

Philip Hollobone: On BBC2's "Newsnight" last night, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality said that it would take at least 10 years to clear the backlog of illegal immigrants in this country. Residents of my Kettering constituency and elsewhere think that it is scandalous that those in government who are supposed to defend our country and protect our borders seem to be completely unable to do so. I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) in calling for an urgent debate on immigration and asylum in this country.

Jack Straw: There are plenty of occasions to debate that issue, but if the Opposition feel really exercised about it they have a number of Opposition days coming up, which I am sure that they will put to good use.  [ Interruption. ] I see the Opposition Chief Whip confirm that. I am always happy to suggest subjects to the Opposition for their debating time.
	I point out to the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality gave that time scale because of the time that it will take to introduce the e-borders arrangements, so that we have accurate data on the numbers going in and coming out of the country.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman tells his constituents that in 1996 the then Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe(Mr. Howard), decided to abandon disembarkation controls in Dover and other ports, which covered about 40 per cent. of those leaving the country. He also got rid of all the staff and the budget for them. When I became Home Secretary, it was clear that there was no point in maintaining embarkation controls in respect of the other 60 per cent. because people who wanted to leave illegally would go through the other ports. The system that the Conservatives had maintained meant that even when disembarkation cards were taken off people, they were put in a room and nothing was done with them.
	We must change the system, and that is what the Government are seeking to do. I wish that there had been slightly more help from the Opposition in respect of part of these arrangements, especially on identity cards.

Pete Wishart: I associate myself and my hon. Friends with the glowing tributes to Eric Forth. When showing new Members round the House, I would always point out Eric Forth, and the description "colourful character" would always feature.
	I do not know whether the Leader of the House saw the programme on the BBC over the weekend that showed that 52 per cent. of the British public believe that Scottish Members should no longer be able to become Prime Minister. I am certainly sure that it was not missed by No. 11. Does not this show that the public are way ahead of the House and the Government in their thinking about the role of Scottish Members? Should we not have a proper, grown-up debate about the role of us Scots MPs so that we get up to speed with the public on this issue?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman has a particular view—he would like to see Scotland separated from the rest of the United Kingdom. That is not the view taken by the vast majority of people in Scotland, nor is it the view taken by the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom. We should celebrate our Britishness. A Prime Minister is the Prime Minister for the entire United Kingdom—that is Great Britain, including Scotland and Northern Ireland. It seems to me that where he or she happens to come from is entirely irrelevant.

Christopher Fraser: May I also associate myself with the tributes that have been paid to Eric Forth? He was a politician who always made himself available to new Members to give them, as he would put it, good advice.
	You have probably read, as I have, Mr. Speaker, the interview of the Leader of the House in  The Times of two days ago. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's aspirations about petitions receiving a certain amount of action rather than just a response. Will he extend that principle to popular early-day motions, which currently receive no Government response or debate in the House?

Jack Straw: The petitions proposal is not an original proposal from me; it has been around for a while. I understand that the Scottish Parliament has a good system in place for dealing with petitions that are signed by a significant number of Members. It was my instinct to raise the matter before the Modernisation Committee and, subject to what colleagues on that Committee and other Members believe to be right, to ensure that we take more seriously petitions that are often painstakingly drawn up, with the support of many constituents and other people throughout the country. I think that that is straightforward.
	An inquiry is taking place into the future of early-day motions. That is a matter for the House and certainly not one for the Government. It is a tricky issue because they are used for serious national issues, serious constituency issues and trivial issues such as the success or failure of Burnley football club.

Richard Benyon: As a new Member, I would like to associate myself with the tributes to Eric Forth. He was unfailingly kind to those of us who were elected last year. I will miss his ready wit and his robust advice.
	Now that the Government have reinstated structures in the national health service that they got rid of eight years ago, can we have a debate to reflect the real concerns of health practitioners in our constituencies who are concerned about the culture of continual change in the NHS. They just want a period of calm. They would like us to have the opportunity to reflect that in Parliament in the presence of Ministers. May we have such a debate?

Jack Straw: I welcome all debates on the national health service—on what we have done nationally and on what happens locally. I hope very much that in such debates, Opposition Members, including those who are new, will be honest enough to talk about the state that the NHS would have been in had Conservative spending plans continued, and had the Government accepted their advice when each year—almost without exception—they voted against the spending plans proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If Conservative spending plans had continued, there would not have been the dramatic increase in the numbers of nurses, doctors and other clinicians—there has been an 85,000 increase in the number of nurses. There would also not have been a dramatic increase—it was increased by more than a quarter—in the real pay of nurses. Instead, there would have been the same stagnation in the health service, and, as a result, there would have been lower delivery of care for the hon. Gentleman's constituents and for the constituents of every other Member of this place.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will remember next week those hon. Members who have not been called today.

Points of Order

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I received a reply from the Minister for Energy to a letter that I wrote to the Prime Minister about nuclear power. His letter said that the outcome of the energy review has not been pre-determined and that no decisions have been taken on the need for new nuclear power stations. He said that it was a genuine energy review. That is at odds with what the Prime Minister has stated. It is clearly essential that hon. Members are given—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair. I am not responsible for what any Minister has to say, whether it be the Prime Minister or any other Minister. The hon. Gentleman will have to take up the matter—the contradictions—with the Ministers concerned.

Andrew Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the Order Paper today there is notice of a written ministerial statement on the Royal Mail. You may have heard the content of the statement being discussed on the "Today" programme this morning. I wonder whether that was with some foreknowledge that the House did not possess.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that there was a written statement. Information has been given to the House and it is available in the Vote Office.

Members' Salaries and Chairmen's Pay

Jack Straw: I beg to move
	That, in the opinion of this House, the following provisions shall be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House, including the additional salaries determined in accordance with the Resolutions of this House (as amended from time to time) of 30th October 2003 relating to Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees (No. 2) and 13th July 2005 relating to Pay for Chairmen of Standing Committees (No. 2)—
	For the year starting with 1st April 2006 the yearly rate shall be increased in two stages—
	(a) with effect from 1st April, by 1 per cent., and
	(b) with effect from 1st November, to the yearly rate determined in accordance with the Resolution of this House of 10th July 1996 relating to Members' Salaries.

Mr. Speaker: With this we will consider the two motions on the pay of Chairmen of Select Committees.

Jack Straw: The motion on Members' salaries will give effect to the proposal announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 30 March that the pay increases for Members of Parliament for 2006-07 should be staged, with the full increase being deferred until 1 November rather than being payable from 1 April last. The proposal is made in the context of the Government's response to the 28th report of the Senior Salaries Review Body, which provides that the award to the senior civil service, to which Members' pay is linked under the formula agreed in 1996, is being staged in a similar way.
	Under the decisions taken in 2003 and 2005, annual uprating of the additional salaries for Select and Standing Committee Chairmen is also linked to the senior civil service pay bands. The motion accordingly provides that the increase in these salaries too should be staged.
	Under these proposals, the salary of a Member of Parliament will be £59,686 from 1 April and £60,277 from 1 November. The principle of linkage to the senior civil service pay bands, agreed by the House in 1996, followed earlier systems of linkage. It was intended to avoid the need for a major debate on Members' pay on every occasion when pay needed to be adjusted. However, the system agreed does not cover the present situation, because the pay bands to which our pay is linked would have risen by the full 2 per cent. from 1 April. If nothing further were done, our pay would rise by 2 per cent. from that date, even though this would not be the case in practice for most of the senior civil service.
	When he proposed this staging of the senior civil service pay increase, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that it was to
	"reflect what is affordable within expenditure plans."
	I accept that the total saving to the public purse from the staging of the pay of Members of Parliament itself will be relatively small. It amounts to less than £230,000 in basic pay, and a little more than that if other factors—employers' national insurance contributions and Exchequer pensions contributions—are included.
	I hope that colleagues agree that we ought to play our part and show restraint, as we are asking the senior civil service, to whose pay ours is linked, to show equal restraint.

Nicholas Winterton: As the House knows, the Senior Salaries Review Body has made some critical recommendations on Members' pay, and it has established comparators in both the public and the private sectors. Does the Leader of the House accept that Members' pay is 20 per cent. behind the comparators to which it has been linked by the SSRB? Is that fair in the short, medium or long term for hon. Members? Will it encourage good, competent, able, intelligent people to put their names forward as Members of Parliament?

Jack Straw: I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, and I shall deal with the wider review of Members' pay that will take place next year. As comparable pay in the private sector has risen much faster than pay for senior civil servants, they too are out of kilter with the comparators, so I accept the strength of that argument.
	In its review next year the SSRB must take account of the extent to which pay levels act as a disincentive, deterring good people in all walks of life from serving in the House. It is important that Members of Parliament be paid properly, and—as members of all parties aspire to hold office—that should include Ministers. At the same time, however, I am struck by the high calibre of members of all parties who entered the House in 2001 and 2005, notwithstanding the pay and the cynical press that Members of Parliament generally receive. However, if pay does not keep pace with the comparators, particularly as the pressure on Members of Parliament to serve full-time is much greater than it was when the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and I came to the House almost three decades ago—

Nicholas Winterton: It was more than three decades ago, in my case.

Jack Straw: Indeed. In those circumstances there will be a disincentive, deterring good people not only from entering the House but, if they do enter it, from staying .

Michael Spicer: Will the Leader of the House confirm that it is mandatory for the SSRB to hold that review, as there appears to be some doubt in its mind?

Jack Straw: I have been handed a note saying that the broader questions will be dealt with in the SSRB's triennial review, which is due in 2007. If I am wrong—and I intend to talk to the chairman shortly—I will make that known to the House. However, I have every reason to believe that there will be a full review next year—and that view is being confirmed by the nods of officials in the Box.

Theresa May: It might be more appropriate to confirm this at the end of the debate or afterwards, but what is the date of the triennial review? I understand that it was due to take place this year rather than next year.

Jack Straw: I shall certainly confirm the date for the right hon. Lady.

Nicholas Winterton: May I point out that Members of Parliament are in a unique position? Members entering the House for the first time—there were many such Members at the last election—receive the same pay as a Member of Parliament who has served in the House for 25, 30, 35 or even 40 years. It is important that Members' pay keep pace with the comparators, otherwise there is a grave unfairness for Members who serve with loyalty and distinction in the House. I include the Leader of the House in that category.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have received a note saying that the review was to be commissioned this year, and will report next year. I have rather fewer complaints about my pay because, as I am a member of the Cabinet, it is a little more than the hon. Gentleman's. I hope that the review will look at the issue of whether there should be an age and experience-related band, as it is perfectly possible to construct a series of steps—

Gordon Prentice: Oh, no.

Jack Straw: Hang on a sec. It is perfectly possible to construct a pay system in which Members are paid according to age and time spent in the House. Whether that is acceptable to the public purse, and above all to hon. Members, is another matter. There has been an improvement, however, as Chairmen of Select Committees and equivalent bodies, including members of the Speaker's Panel, receive additional remuneration. The only people who do not receive such remuneration are members of the shadow Cabinet, who have to work extremely hard and are not paid properly for that work. However, that is an incentive to leave the shadows and enter Government. I hope that everyone accepts the case for staging, which is the subject of the motion.
	May I deal with the two motions on payment for Chairmen of the Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill, both of which make the same proposition? The House decided to introduce payments for the Chairmen of the main Select Committees in 2003, following a debate in 2002 on the principle of payment arising from a report of the Modernisation Committee and from a subsequent report by the SSRB on the amount payable. In July 2005 we decided that that should be extended to nearly all the remaining permanent Committees. We decided, too, that a system of payment should be introduced for members of the Chairmen's Panel who chair Standing Committees.
	The main purpose of the decision to pay Chairmen of Select Committees was to promote recognition of another career choice in the House as an alternative to service as a Minister. It reflected a recognition of the importance of Select Committees in underpinning a modern democracy, and a general agreement that the chairmanship of many Committees involves a heavy work load and substantial responsibility. The House would wish me to take the opportunity to say how much we value the work of Select Committees and to thank the various Chairmen for their commitment. The decision to pay Chairmen was by no means unanimous, but the House as a whole has shown that it supports the principle by subsequently extending the list of Chairmen who receive the additional salary.
	Chairmen of non-permanent Committees have not been paid, partly because they do not fit the criteria as clearly as other Chairmen. By definition, such Committees are relatively short-lived, although the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, which was ably chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), has just reported after four months and more than 20 sittings. It would be difficult to identify in advance which Committees should be covered and which should not. However, where there is an exceptional case, I hope that colleagues agree that we should reflect that in arrangements for the payment of salaries.
	The Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill appears to be such a case. It first sat on 13 December, and it sits up to four times a week when the House is sitting. Until last week it had sat on 36 days, so as it typically sits twice a day, it has many more sittings than other Committees. It may continue to sit—but perhaps not at the same rate—until the autumn. The House will agree that its work load is higher than that of many other Committees whose members are paid an additional salary. It is higher, too, than the work load of other ad hoc committees.

David Heath: Undoubtedly members of Committees considering private legislation—the Crossrail Bill Committee is such a Committee—undertake an awful lot of hard work, but I find it difficult to distinguish the additional work by Chairmen from that of the membership, as they both seem to do exactly the same job in the same circumstances.

Jack Straw: It could be said that assiduous members of Select Committees do the same job as, say, the Chairman of a Select Committee who happens to be coasting. There is no precise science. All Members who are doing their duties in the House work very hard—far harder, I may say, than they get credit for, regardless of party, from many sections of the press. But there is a difference between chairing a Committee and being a member of it. There is plainly a difference in responsibility. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman does not seek to make the best the enemy of the good, and will accepts that there is an exception to the general rule to be made here.
	I express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) for the work that he has done as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill. Had he simply been coasting, had he not been taking his responsibilities seriously, I would not have tabled the motion and Members on both sides would not have accepted it. I accept that to add this Committee to the list of Committees whose Chairmen receive an additional salary will set something of a precedent. We will have to look at other cases as they arise, and it is not inconceivable that another Select Committee on a Bill may at some future point justify similar treatment. However, I do not envisage that we will have for some time another ad hoc Committee involving the work commitment for its Chairman that that one involves. It is a matter for the House to decide, but I think it is right to put the motion forward to provide an opportunity for the Chamber as a whole to make that decision.

Theresa May: I support all three motions before the House relating to Members' salaries and the pay of Chairmen of Select Committees.
	I am grateful to the Leader of the House for having recognised that the staging of Members' pay does not in itself constitute a very large saving for the Government. However, as others, with whom we have been compared and linked in respect of the decision on our pay, are being asked to take their pay in stages, it is appropriate that we undertake the same level of restraint as we expect of them.
	The Leader of the House referred to the wider issue, partly in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton). The pay of Members of Parliament is a difficult matter, with which Governments and Members have grappled over the years. We have not necessarily found the best way to deal with Members' pay. It is Members who vote on our pay, and voters raise questions about it. They are often encouraged in that by members of the press, whose salaries are not revealed to the electorate or to their readership.
	There is an issue that we need to address, and the SSRB triennial review will consider the wider aspects when it reports. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for clarifying that that will be commissioned later this year and will report next year. The question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) is important, concerning the mandatory nature of that report. The report is not produced at the whim of the Prime Minister; a resolution was passed that a triennial review should take place.

Michael Spicer: The resolution is cited on the Order Paper; it was motion 14 at the time.

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. I am sure the Leader of the House has noted the point and the motion number, to ensure that the process goes ahead and there is no way that the triennial review can be stymied by a prime ministerial decision.
	The wider issue is important. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the need to encourage high-calibre people to want to become Members of Parliament, and to the fact that these days this is a full-time job. That is not necessarily a view that will be shared by all my colleagues, or in other parts of the House, but my personal view is that it is a full-time job and we should treat it as such, as I have always done. That presents a challenge to those who are employed in areas where salaries are above those of Members of Parliament, which in the past may not have been the case. It is no longer the case that higher salaries are paid only to those in a significant role in business or banking, or who are barristers or in similar professions. A head teacher of a secondary school, for example, almost certainly earns more than a Member of Parliament.

Nicholas Winterton: Similarly, a superintendent of police.

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There are a number of areas of employment where salaries are higher than those of Members of Parliament, which would not have been so in the past. People of very high calibre still wish to be Members of Parliament, but sometimes that involves them and their families making significant sacrifices to enable them to give their service to the country. We need to consider the issue.
	I crave the indulgence of the House to raise one further point that cannot be accommodated by the SSRB triennial review, but which is a matter for all parties—the cost of standing as a candidate for election to Parliament. That can be a significant cost, particularly to someone nursing a seat for three or four years, if they are selected well in advance of an election. That presents a challenge to parties too, to ensure that we encourage high-calibre people to enter the House, as we are all keen to do.
	On the pay of Chairmen of Select Committees, the right decision was taken by the House. It was an important step offering Members a different career structure, so that they do not have to become Ministers to feel that they are progressing and earning extra salary. The Leader of the House mentioned members of the shadow Cabinet. Having been a member of the shadow Cabinet since 1999, I, perhaps more than others, am conscious of the point. Members of the shadow Cabinet assume that burden with no extra pay over and above that of Members of Parliament.
	The key issue is that the role of Select Committee Chairman offers an alternative career. In earlier exchanges during business questions, the Leader of the House referred to the introduction of the Select Committee system in the House. That has been one of the great strengths of the House over the past 25 years, and it is important that we recognise the value of that through the pay of Chairmen of Select Committees.
	On the Crossrail Bill, I entirely understand the intervention by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) about the fact that all the members of the Committee take on a substantial burden because of the number of meetings of the Committee. I say openly and honestly that I would not like to be a member of that Committee. I intend to give evidence to it because Crossrail affects my constituency, but it is a detailed issue and a significant burden to meet and take so much evidence from those who have submitted petitions against the Crossrail Bill.
	It can be argued that for members of any Select Committee there is a burden if they do their job assiduously, which I know members of Select Committees do, but the Chairman of such a Committee has an extra burden to bear, and it is appropriate that the Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill be added to the list of those whose Chairmen who are paid. The Leader of the House made a valid point when he said that we cannot guarantee that in future other Committees will not need to be added. Now that he has finally been allowed to become Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, after a little local difficulty, he will know that, as became clear from the evidence taken yesterday, one of the current issues concerns the role of Select Committees, Standing Committees and Special Select Committees in the future. If the Modernisation Committee proposes changes to the way in which the House handles legislation and the legislative process, so that the balance between Select Committees and Standing Committees and their various responsibilities evolves, we may need to look again at the whole question of whom it is appropriate to pay.
	I welcome the fact that Select Committee Chairmen are now paid—that has been an important move for the House—and I endorse the adding of the Chairman of the Crossrail Bill Committee to the list of those whose salary is increased in recognition of the extra work that they are doing.

David Heath: It is always difficult when we discuss our own salaries and emoluments in this House. I must admit that many hon. Members whom I number among my friends and acquaintances regret the fact that it falls to me to speak from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench on such matters, because I have something of a reputation for taking a puritanical view of them. Indeed, I am very clear that in fact and in perception we must be extraordinarily careful that we do not seem to be giving ourselves preferential treatment above those who serve in the public service or the private sector beyond this place. For instance, when we discussed the enhancements made to the pensions of right hon. and hon. Members, I was opposed because I felt that it was a clear example of an occasion when we were protecting our interests rather better than we were able to protect those of many other people.

Eric Martlew: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern, but if I remember the options on the pension correctly, one could either take it or increase it. What did he do?

David Heath: I did not take it, but that is neither here nor there. I do not want to parade that as an example of virtue—it was simply the way that I felt about the issue.
	We must also, however, be fair to Members of Parliament. We have to reflect the comparators that are set down and ensure that Members' salaries are commensurate with the responsibilities that they take on. It worries me when Members' pay falls way behind those comparators. I agree with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that the job of a Member of Parliament should be to represent people in this place, not to go off and do some other job down the road. It always surprises and sometimes shocks me when somebody leaves high office, or even shadow responsibilities, and the first thing that the newspapers say is, "What job is he going to do now?" The answer is the job of a Member of Parliament, which is still their prime responsibility. It worries me that so many Members feel the need to top up their salaries in all sorts of ways. I cannot believe that that is to the advantage of their constituents. Of course, every individual has to take a view for themselves.
	The Leader of the House cited the quality of the recent intake of Members. I agree. I think that we had an extraordinarily talented intake on both sides of the House this time.

Jamie Reed: Hear, hear.

David Heath: Even the hon. Gentleman who says, "Hear, hear", whom I perceive to be one of the new intake, will recognise that we have had some very talented individuals joining us. However, although that may be a seductive argument for saying that we can therefore allow market forces to do their work and allow salaries to dwindle, it is wrong. It would be a complacent view, and an unfair one. Greater self-sacrifice is required, not only by Members but by their families, which is sometimes inappropriate. Having for several years led a county council with an annual turnover of about £500,000 on the basis that total expenses were about £4,000 per annum, I know how difficult it is to make such sacrifices in order to achieve one's political objectives.

Michael Spicer: All the difficult questions that the hon. Gentleman is posing are surely meant to be sorted out by the Senior Salaries Review Body. Would not the answer be for us simply to accept its recommendations?

David Heath: That is by far the simplest way of dealing with it, and it takes the matter out of the political argument, which is as it should be. I would hope that it takes an objective and independent view, not one clouded by the misconceptions of bundling up all our office expenses—for example, staff and computers—into our salary and saying that they are perks for the individual concerned. All those factors are removed from the equation and we have an objective view.
	I entirely support the contention of the Leader of the House in the first motion. Given that the Government have determined that civil service pay should be staged, it would be wrong of us to seek an advantageous position, and we should accept that recommendation.
	That brings me on to the payment of the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill. I have genuine problems with that. I hasten to add thatthat has nothing to do with either the person orthe qualities of the hon. Member for Mansfield(Mr. Meale), and everything to do with the apparent lack of discipline and control over the process—a process that I generally welcome. Those who chair Select Committees of the House undertake a very substantial job and generally do so with a great deal of assiduity and sheer hard work. I can readily accept that there should be a career structure within the House and that it should be rewarded, but I have always been reluctant for it to be greatly expanded. I agree with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead that we are rapidly approaching the situation whereby the only people who will not be paid extra are those who do a great deal of the work of the House by speaking from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches on each and every Bill and attending Standing Committees to speak as required, and do so without any extra emolument at all. I hasten to add that I am not seeking that extra emolument, but merely pointing out that it is a rather perverse situation.
	We now have payments for the Chairmen on the Chairmen's Panel who chair our Standing Committees. Again, I do not argue with that. It is a gradated structure. However, naming a specific temporary Committee sets an unhelpful precedent. The motion makes no provision—although it is clearly implied—that the payment should cease at the point at which the Select Committee reports. However, I have a more substantial objection. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Mansfield is a member of the Chairmen's Panel—if so, he is receiving a payment as such—but I suspect that he is not. That is surprising. Hon. Members who are put on a Select Committee on private legislation undertake a truly horrendous task. It is very time-consuming and difficult work that is usually, frankly, given as a punishment by the Whips Office for some misdemeanour, and I have the greatest sympathy for those who undertake it. But the fact remains that that hard work is shared by all the members of the Committee. It is not like being the Chairman of a departmental Select Committee. Those Chairmen do a tremendous amount of work outside the Committee, meeting individuals, preparing for meetings and guiding the reports that the Committee produces. They do a whole array of further work, but I do not believe that that is the role of the Chairman of a private Bill Committee. The work of those Committees is shared by all their members.
	I do not intend to show any disrespect to the hon. Member for Mansfield, who I know is doing very good job of work, but he is not there all the time, and I believe that up to four other Members have also chaired that Bill Committee. So it seems odd to reward only one member of the Committee, quite substantially under the terms of this provision, for doing that temporary job. Furthermore, it is not clear to me from my reading of the resolution whether this is an annualised payment in line with those of other Select Committee Chairmen, on whether there is a pro rata element related to the timing of the Bill. It would be helpful to know that.

John Bercow: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will take my intervention as confirmation of his theory about punishment. May I tell him that I was asked, although not instructed, to sit on the Committee on the Crossrail Bill? However, I declined the invitation.

David Heath: As I have no idea of the hon. Gentleman's present relationship with his Whips, I cannot possibly comment. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) was certainly not given his post as a punishment. He is there as a willing conscript, although he might now be regretting having been prepared to take on those responsibilities.

Gordon Prentice: How was the Chair of the Crossrail Bill Committee chosen? Was he chosen by members of the Committee, or was the decision made through the usual channels? This is an important issue when we are talking about Members of Parliament getting a very substantial additional sum tacked on to their salary.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman has asked an extremely important question. No doubt the Leader of the House will be able to answer it when he responds to the debate. If there was a genuine election within the membership of the Committee, that would be one thing. However, if there was an instruction to the effect that someone had been favoured with the chairmanship of the Committee and was to receive a substantial emolument as a result, that would change the view of the House on what exactly is going on. For all those reasons, I really need to be convinced that this is a sensible way forward.

Eric Martlew: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I do not quite understand it. If the Chairman of that Bill Committee were a member of the Chairmen's Panel, he would be paid. If he were the Chair of a Select Committee, he would be paid. So why should he not receive payment for chairing this particular Committee?

David Heath: The hon. Member for Mansfield would be paid rather less if he were a member of the Chairmen's Panel. He would be paid as a prospective Standing Committee Chairman, which, by a resolution of the House, would depend on his experience in the role, but he would still receive considerably less than the rate of pay that is felt to be appropriate for a Select Committee Chairman.
	The anomaly is that this Bill Committee is described as a Select Committee but it is not a departmental Select Committee— [ Interruption.] The Leader of the House objects to my use of the word "anomaly", so I shall retract it. However, such Committees are a kind of hybrid between a Standing Committee and a Select Committee. Many other temporary Committees are set up for similar purposes, and the only logical conclusion is that anyone who chairs any Committee of the House in any circumstances ought to have a temporary pay increase—

Jack Straw: Yes, I have got the point.

David Heath: That being the case, I shall not detain the House further by repeating my arguments. I would love to be convinced that the proposals represent a sensible way forward, but I cannot see that at the moment.

Jack Straw: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate. I am glad to hear that there is general approbation for the first motion, which is to restrict our pay increase to just 1 per cent., and widespread agreement with the second and third motions on the Chairman of the Crossrail Bill.
	The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) raised a fundamental point about how we settle our pay, in saying that we have always had difficulties because we have to vote on our own pay. This is almost unique, except for those who run a company that they wholly own. I remember the debates that took place on this matter in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when the system was much worse than it is today. In those days, there was no linkage, which was just awful. The system of linkage is much better, because it provides a clear benchmark. I am not sure whether we could devise a better system, although—to pick up the points made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and others—we must not forget the important associated issue of what the benchmark should be. We need to ensure that the salaries of Members of Parliament keep up with certain comparators, without any shifts being offensive to our constituents.
	The right hon. Member for Maidenhead also made an interesting point about the cost to people of standing as a candidate. It would be hard to make the case that such costs should become a charge on the public purse directly, although they are onerous—

Theresa May: indicated dissent.

Jack Straw: No, I know that the right hon. Lady was not suggesting that.
	I must point out to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that I was not suggesting that, because the level of talent that has been elected to the House in recent Parliaments, particularly since 1997, when the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) entered the House—

John Bercow: Your cheque is in the post.

Jack Straw: Thank you very much.
	The fact that the level of talent has been high does not mean that we should not consider fair remuneration for Members. My point is that, despite the fact that the rewards here are modest—and less than what most Members of Parliament could command if they worked elsewhere—it is interesting that people of talent still enter the House. That happens despite, rather than because of, the remuneration system here.

Theresa May: Purely to set the record straight, may I tell the Leader of the House that I was not suggesting in any way that the cost of standing as a parliamentary candidate should be a drain on the public purse? However, all parties need to examine these issues, particularly as we are trying to encourage greater diversity among the people coming into the House.

Jack Straw: I accept the right hon. Lady's point. That issue is the subject of separate inquiries into the funding of political parties, and into whether those parties should be able to pay some of those expenses. All hon. Members have made substantial financial sacrifices when trying to become Members of Parliament.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome talked about the Chairman of the Crossrail Bill Committee. First, he can be assured that the post is time limited. If the Crossrail Bill Committee ceases to exist, thatsalary will cease to be paid to the Chair. This is not the 18th century; this is the 21st century.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) asked how the Chairman of that Committee had been chosen. The answer is that it is a combination of the usual channels—

Gordon Prentice: Ah, I thought so!

Jack Straw: But it is also up to the Committee itself. It is the same arrangement as for a Select Committee. It does not involve a Chairmen's Panel nomination. So the usual channels ensure that, by some osmotic process, a name comes forward. That Member becomes a member of the Committee and—hey presto!—all other members of the Committee, by an entirely democratic free vote, approve that person. That seems to work fine— [ Laughter.] If my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle wants some of this, he should just see me and I will do my best to ensure that he receives similar favour.

John Bercow: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Jack Straw: One second. Somebody outrageously suggested that places on hybrid and private Bill Committees are reserved for punishments by the Whips. I am sure that that is still true in the Conservative party; it is no longer true in the Labour party and the Government, because we now have a caring, sharing Whips Office that does everything by gentle persuasion. However, it certainly was true, as I remember—  [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Maidenhead says that her Chief Whip is also very nice. He, of course, gets paid, unlike members of the shadow Cabinet.
	As a shadow Cabinet member for 10 years, it always rankled that I was expected to work my socks off and speak on behalf of the party while not being paid a penny, whereas our Chief Whip, who was expected simply to dragoon people into the Lobby and not speak at all, was paid a large sum. There we are; it just gets one used to life in government.
	If I might detain the House for a moment on the issue of punishment by the Whips, I remember that such punishment took place in the 1980s in respect of a close friend of mine, with whom I shared an office, the late Allan Roberts. He was a good parliamentarian, but an outrageous roué and bon viveur, and was the Member for Bootle until his sad death in 1990.
	Allan had been offending the Whips in a variety of ways and was told that he had to serve his time by going on a private Bill Committee. As so often, he got into trouble; he failed to turn up to the private Bill Committee and was told that he would be fined about £50 for each failure. He came to me, and I had to try to bail him out—not for the first time, let me say, nor indeed the last.
	With that digression, I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will accept that, although this is something of a precedent, without precedents—if we were against them—nothing would ever be done for the first time. This is a new situation, and I hope he accepts that this is a fair way to proceed. I am grateful to those on the Conservative Front Bench for their support.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That, in the opinion of this House, the following provisions shall be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House, including the additional salaries determined in accordance with the Resolutions of this House (as amended from time to time) of 30th October 2003 relating to Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees (No. 2) and 13th July 2005 relating to Pay for Chairmen of Standing Committees (No. 2)—
	For the year starting with 1st April 2006 the yearly rate shall be increased in two stages—
	(a) with effect from 1st April, by 1 per cent., and
	(b) with effect from 1st November, to the yearly rate determined in accordance with the Resolution of this House of 10th July 1996 relating to Members' Salaries.

PAY FOR CHAIRMEN OF SELECT COMMITTEES

Resolved,
	That this House expresses the opinion that, as from 13th December 2005, the Resolution of the House of 30th October 2003, relating to Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees (No. 2), as amended by the Resolution of 13th July 2005, should be further amended by leaving out 'or the Committee on Standards and Privileges' and inserting 'the Committee on Standards and Privileges or the Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill'.— [Mr. Straw.]

PAY FOR CHAIRMEN OF SELECT COMMITTEES (NO. 2)

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
	 Resolved,
	That, as from 13th December 2005, the Resolution of the House of 30th October 2003, relating to Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees (No. 2), as amended by the Resolution of 13th July 2005, is further amended by leaving out 'or the Committee on Standards and Privileges' and inserting 'the Committee on Standards and Privileges or the Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill'.— [Mr. Straw.]

Association of Former Members of Parliament

Jack Straw: I beg to move,
	That this House welcomes the formation of the Association of Former Members of Parliament in response to the Resolution of the House of 2nd May 2001; notes that it now has a membership of over 330 former Members; acknowledges the work done by the Association and its Executive Committee; and welcomes the financial and other assistance accorded to the Association by the House of Commons Commission.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) will speak in greater detail on this issue, because he has been chairing a working group on support for former Members. Those of us who have been lucky enough to survive in the House over many elections, as I have, will have friends who are no longer Members. Some retired at an appropriate moment—we wish them all well in their retirement—but many either got squeezed out because of gratuitous boundary redistributions or lost their seats. That happened to a large number of my colleagues in the 1980s, and it also happened to Conservative colleagues in the 1990s and at the 2001 election.
	Many of those who lost their seats were assiduous Members of Parliament. They had given up careers and quite high incomes, and often put great strains on their families, but they suddenly found themselves outside the House and at a loss as to their future. That is a risk that we all accept when we are elected to the House, but I have often been struck by the lack not of support in terms of pensions, which are reasonable these days, although not for people who retired some time ago, but of psychological support and recognition of the contribution that those people made to the running of the House.
	Shortly before the 2001 election, our former colleague, Joe Ashton, who was just about to retire, led an informal cross-party group looking at what could be done to assist the position of former Members of Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who was then Leader of the House, facilitated a short debate in May 2001, just before the general election, which led, in effect, to the establishment of a working party to report to the Speaker. The motion identified the desire of former Members to stay in contact with each other and the possible benefits of availability of sources of personal advice and assistance for those who might have got into difficulties.
	As I say, my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle will go into more detail, but I understand that the association has more than 330 members, including a former Prime Minister and a former Speaker. Any such association needs some material support, but I understand that our association funds most of its activities from subscription. However, some modest financial support and assistance in kind have been made available by the House of Commons Commission. That will continue.
	The Commission considered that
	"in due course the view of the House should be sought on this assistance, so that it can be put on a steadier footing".
	The main purpose of tabling the motion is to allow the House to give its view. We are being asked to give broad endorsement of the Commission's approach, but not to take responsibility for specific decisions, which remain a matter for the Commission. I am extremely happy to give that endorsement. I hope that the House as a whole does so to.

Theresa May: I am also happy to give that endorsement. Any large organisation has clubs, societies and groupings for former members of staff, which are for people who retire in the natural way of things. Of course, many Members of the House lose their jobs, and that can come as a great shock to them. Politics is a brutal business in that sense. Therefore, the proposal seems entirely sensible. Indeed, it seems a little odd that it took so long for a grouping or association of former Members to be formed.
	I pay tribute to the work of all those former Members and Members of the House who have been involved in getting the association up and running and in ensuring that it is provided with the support it needs. I am entirely happy to endorse that important, albeit limited, support that the Commission has agreed the House may give.
	I would like to make a further point. There are many ways in which Members of the House can continue to learn from former Members. On a specific issue, I am very grateful for the support that Dame Marion Roe is giving to those of us who are trying to encourage more women into the House, particularly on the Conservative Benches. She is giving practical support and advice to women. It is good of former Members to be willing to do that. We should never forget the experience that they have, which can be of benefit to current Members and to the House generally.

Eric Martlew: I am delighted to speak to the motion. On 2 May 2001 we had the original motion before the House. Of course, if it had not been for the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, the debate would never have taken place. After it, the Speaker asked me to form a working group to see whether we could get an association up and running.
	I was flattered by that and I wondered whether the Speaker realised that I had a background in human resources—I used to be personnel manager for a large multinational company. So, I delved into this a little further, but the reality was that I was one of only three Members who were sitting on the Benches when the debate took place. I was the obvious candidate.
	The work has gone well, but when I was appointed to the post, I wondered why we had never had a formal association. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) has asked that question today from the Conservative Front Bench. Throughout the world, Parliaments similar to ours all have their associations. I then realised that the reason for us not having an association for former Members is down at the other end of the building. In fact, we have an association, and it is called the House of Lords. It has been there for many centuries, but only elite former Members went to it. If what I hear is to be believed, it will be even more difficult for Members of this House to get to the other House, so I am sure that the need for the association will increase.
	The working group reported to the Speaker and the then Leader of the House, and it was successful. The association of former Members now has, I think,340 members, including two former Prime Ministers and 32 former Cabinet Ministers. They need no advice from us about how to run their business, as many of them have run the country, some of them well and some not so well.
	As the Leader of the House pointed out, there was a need for this association, and the main need was for fellowship. This place is a closed community, and suddenly finding oneself on the outside is difficult when most Members live in their constituencies and are unlikely to meet one of their work colleagues walking down the street. Some successful social gatherings have taken place, and I want to put on the record our thanks for the support of Speaker Martin in that regard. The Administration Committee, which was at first reluctant to accept the demands of the association, has also been helpful.
	Progress has been made. When the association was started, a former Member had to have completed15 years' service before being given permission to come into the House without having to go through security and wear a label with a date on it. That has now improved greatly. Former Members found it shaming to have to go through that procedure and felt that their contribution merited better. An office has been provided, which is welcomed by the association. The small amount of financial support provided helps to pay the association's postage costs. It has been fortunate to employ a part-time secretary, Sally Grocott—"employ" is perhaps not the right word, as I am not sure that she gets paid or gets paid regularly. As she knows the House—her husband is Chief Whip in the other place—she has been a tower of strength to the association.
	The driving force behind the association, however, has been Joe Ashton. I have worked closely with him and he tires me out. Given the amount of energy that he puts into his role, he probably retired too early. The association has been fortunate to have him. Nothing is ever good enough for Joe, so we must go further and faster. He now has an all-party, mixed-gender executive that represents various regions of the United Kingdom. The House would be proud to form an executive on such a basis were it ever able to do so. Members are aware of its success, because it produces a newspaper, "Order Order", three times a year, which is now circulated with  The House Magazine.
	The association has asked me to raise one or two issues. First, it has asked me to raise the issue of the pension fund trustees. I served for many years as a pension fund trustee and, believe me, it is not a glamorous committee. It is perhaps a bit like that on the Crossrail Bill, but the chairman does not get paid. The law says that there should be pensioner trustees. At present, we have a pensioner trustee, who was not nominated by the association but is a member of it. The association has asked whether it can be consulted in future about the retired trustee on the pension fund, which is a reasonable request, and whether there could be more than one retired trustee on the pension fund. I hope that that suggestion will be communicated through the usual channels back to the fund trustees.
	Secondly, the association asked me to raise the issue of the Members' Fund, of which, for my pains, I am also a member. I am conscious that the vast majority of Members of Parliament know nothing about the Members' Fund—they just know from their payslip that they make a £2 contribution to it every month. In reality, it is a fund for assisting former Members of Parliament or their spouses and family—the assistance is normally to spouses and family who might have fallen into some kind of financial difficulty. The laws on the fund were passed by the House in about 1935 and need revising. Members of the association understand that. If the laws are revised, however, they would like a retired association member to be a member of the Members' Fund.
	I also want to raise the issue, on which the Leader of the House touched, of how we treat Members who lose their seats. Some work has been done on that, and I thought that I had secured an agreement with the usual channels that when a Member loses a seat, he or she can use part of the winding-up allowance to get expert help on returning to the labour market. A Member of Parliament who has been out of his or her profession for 10 years will find it difficult to get back into the labour market. The multinational company for which I worked would bring in consultants to assist those who had been made redundant with their CVs and advise them on their career prospects and future direction. That does not happen here. My understanding—which was wrong, as it did not happen—was that Members, if they so wished, could use part of the winding-up allowance for those purposes. I hope that that will have been provided for by the time of the next general election.

David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree—this did not apply to me, although I lost my seat, and I was fortunate enough to be in employment within a week—that the process can be pretty undignified when a Member loses a seat? Several former Members, no doubt on both sides of the House, have needed to get permission from the authorities to come here and collect their papers and so on, perhaps a few days after a general election. A more dignified approach is required to deal with those who have lost their seats, not only to help them in the way that my hon. Friend has suggested, but to make it easier for them to collect papers and do other things that one would do normally when leaving one's employment.

Eric Martlew: I totally accept that, and I understand that the matter is being considered. I have heard the process described as being similar to what happens when an employee has been instantly dismissed—someone will come to the person's office, help him or her to gather their papers and see them off the premises. That cannot be right. Of course, there is pressure of time—the work of the House starts again soon after the general election, and desks and so on must be available. However, the issue must be treated more sensitively. The issue in relation to passes is similar. Often, Members have felt ashamed to come back into the House through the security system. Since we have made changes, the House is a much more welcoming place to former Members.
	My final point is that the amount of money made available to the association is probably less than £2,000. I realise that that is public money, and we must be careful with it. However, outside this place, a civil service retirement association or a large company would be more generous. When the House of Commons Commission considers the matter, I hope that it will see its way to being a little more generous.
	I am grateful that this motion is on the Order Paper today. I am sure that all Members of the House realise that, sooner or later, they will be a former Member. I am not planning to lose my seat at the next general election, but one can never tell. We should take credit for what we have done. Some members of the association complain about the pensions and salaries that we receive and compare them with the amounts that they received, and they are right to do so; but we did set up the association. They had the opportunity to set it up, and did not do so.
	When we are former Members, the association will make leaving this place better for us. We have already made it a great deal better for our colleagues and friends who left at the last election.

David Heath: I want to express not just congratulations but thanks to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), and to all who have been instrumental in setting up the association and making it work as it has. It represents an important advance in what we do for former Members. I also agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about further steps that could be taken. It is extraordinary that although we spend all our time here referring to each other, quite properly, as "the hon. Gentleman" and "the hon. Lady" in accordance with the formalities of the House, the moment a seat is lost the Member is apparently no longer an hon. Gentleman or an hon. Lady, and cannot be trusted to clear his or her desk in good order. That is an indignity that we do not need to visit on those who are inevitably distraught at their position.
	In too many instances, the structures of the House are based on the assumption that someone who leaves is a member of the landed or money gentry to whom attending the House has been merely a pastime for a certain number of years, who can simply return to his estates or his job in the City, and to whom nothing really matters. That is not how things are in the real world. Most Members of Parliament nowadays burn their bridges when they come here, setting aside their former professions, trades or jobs, and when they end their time in the House they often face an uncertain future. It is important to provide such people with a proper transition.
	The hon. Member for Carlisle suggested that some of the winding-up funds should be used to pay for professional advice on employment opportunities. I think that a good employer would supply such funds not from a winding-up allowance, but as a matter of course. I think that the House should provide the largest amount that it can sensibly provide, not because I want Members of Parliament to have a particular advantage but because I want us to be in a similar position to someone leaving a major company. We have all seen major redundancies in our constituencies, and we have all urged employers—some of them good employers, some not so good—to provide relocation packages so that people can find new ways into work.
	I entirely endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Carlisle, and entirely concur with what was said by the Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May).

Peter Bottomley: I support the motion. My wife Virginia is either a member or a potential member of the association. I have enjoyed reading the newsletter, and think that the editor deserves praise.
	I do not agree with some of what has been said, but the debate is relatively limited. I think that we should all be prepared to clear our offices when an election comes, and I do not think that we need too much time in which to do it. I do not like the idea that Members of Parliament are doing a job better than any other that they could do. I am glad that we are past the times when only the poor and the rich could become Members of Parliament, and that now middle-income groups can do so.
	I agree with the general points made about the importance of the solidarity and support that people receive, but I think we should bear in mind the position of spouses or partners of former Members of Parliament, especially former Members who have died. I remember a case about 20 years ago, when someone who had been the daughter-in-law and wife of distinguished Members was not be recognised when she came back here several weeks after her husband's funeral and memorial service. Although they are not members of the association, I hope that some attention will be paid to those who have been married to politics for many years.

Eric Martlew: I should make it clear that spouses can join the association.

Peter Bottomley: I am glad to hear that. I think it very appropriate.
	I believe that the motion should be passed, and that we should have further discussions on what else can be done to ensure that people can be together and feel that they are contributing—if only to the fun of being in an association of former Members, but I think that they can contribute more.

Dennis Skinner: I am sorry that I was missing for a few minutes. I was in touch with—not Joe Ashton, although he has been in touch with me a great deal lately, which is why I have risen to speak—but the cardiologist. Just at the moment, that is a bit more important.
	Joe Ashton was a Whip between 1976 and 1979, when we had no majority. Well, we did have a majority, but then Stonehouse went missing. He was on a Florida beach, then he turned up in Australia. Then he crossed the Floor, and Joe Ashton was given the job of being one of the Whips keeping our majority intact. They were heady days and all the rest of it, but we formed a relationship. Joe's job was to try to get me into the Lobbies. It did not always work, but I told him all those years ago that I would do him a favour some time. I got on the phone to him when he retired. It has not been mentioned yet, but Joe had a very serious illness. We had many long discussions about how he was getting on. At the time I could see that despite the grim fight that he was undertaking, there was no doubt that the proposal that he had helped to put to the House way back in 2001—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said that it was on 2 May—was still very much in his mind. I promised him on numerous occasions that I would raise it if necessary, in accordance with what he wanted. What I did not know was that Joe had also been briefing my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, who has presented most of his propositions today.
	Reference has been made to the composition of this place in the old days. Many Members then had formerly worked in factories or the pits. I can speak with some knowledge about pension entitlements in those days. The pension from the pits was only voluntary even in my day, and there was no pension at all when I started working as a miner. Many people who became Members of Parliament received no pension. It is true that they could have money shifted from one place to another, but people who had given20 years' service were receiving about £100 a month—people who had worked in factories, pits and all the rest. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome(Mr. Heath) was right to say that many Members did not leave with a great deal of money. It is true that the composition of this place has changed dramatically. There are no longer 700,000 miners; you would have a job to find more than 5,000. That is why it is important to remember what the position used to be.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle mentioned nominees for the parliamentary contributory pension fund and the Members' fund. That is what Members are striving for, as of right. If the Commission would consider it, I am sure that my old pal Joe Ashton, Bill Michie and all the rest who helped to form the association will be very pleased. Help with the cost of the magazine would also be appreciated, and Joe also told me that he would like to have the names and addresses of all the Members who had left, so that they could keep in contact.
	So those are the proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle dealt with them previously and explained precisely what was needed, and I hope that the Commission can deal with the matter. I have done my job. I made a promise to Joe donkeys' years ago that there would come an occasion when he would be glad of my presence. I may not be in the Lobby, but I am speaking up for his association.

Jack Straw: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply briefly to this debate. I am very grateful to all those who have expressed their support for the motion and this proposal; that will certainly help members of the House of Commons Commission to ensure better support for the association.
	On the issue of pensioner trustees, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), there is provision for one member of the trustees to be a "pensioner member", and they do not have to be a Member of this House. The current member, who was chosen last year, is Lord Naseby. He is better known to Members of this House as Michael Morris, and was MP for one of the Northampton seats for many years. I undertake to discuss with the association and the trustees whether there should be a nominee from the association, as of right, on the Board of Trustees.
	With that, I urge support for the motion.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the formation of the Association of Former Members of Parliament in response to the Resolution of the House of 2nd May 2001; notes that it now has a membership of over 330 former Members; acknowledges the work done by the Association and its Executive Committee; and welcomes the financial and other assistance accorded to the Association by the House of Commons Commission.

BRITISH NUCLEAR GROUP

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Tony Cunningham.]

Jamie Reed: I am delighted to have secured this debate today on a subject of pivotal importance to my constituency. In fact, although it is of real importance to a number of constituencies throughout the country, nowhere will the effect of the sale of British Nuclear Group be more acutely felt than in Copeland and in West Cumbria generally.
	I want to begin by establishing the unique importance of British Nuclear Group to the Sellafield site, Copeland and West Cumbria. I know that the Minister is well aware of these issues, but they bear repeating. British Nuclear Group is by far the largest company operating on the Sellafield site. It employs more than 7,000 people directly, and the site itself employs over 11,500 people. Employment at Sellafield sustains another 5,000 jobs in the wider local community, so in real terms the site is responsible for approximately 17,000 jobs. Such employment accounts for the majority of the West Cumbria economy and well over 60 per cent. of the economy of Copeland.
	Take-home wages from the Sellafield site are in excess of £210 million per year. The site provides, as the Minister knows, high quality, highly skilled, highly valued jobs. Expenditure from the Sellafield sitegoing into the regional supply chain is in excess of£600 million a year. It provides the lifeblood of the local service industry companies, the hospitality and retail industries, and the bespoke, high-value engineering industries to be found not only in Copeland, but in Allerdale, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham). Local supply chain procurement by BNG is essential in West Cumbria, an issue to which I shall return.
	In addition to that contribution to the local economy, in the past 15 years BNG has committed£20 million to the West Cumbria Development Fund—a local economic regeneration body—which, in turn, has helped to lever in a further £10 million worth of European Union funding. BNG has also demonstrated a concerted willingness to work in partnership with the local communities within which it operates, and, crucially, with the trade unions. In my view, it is the trade union members on any nuclear site who are the ultimate arbiters of safety. That is certainly the case at Sellafield, and I am grateful and pleased that the relationship between them and BNG is as strong as it clearly is. It is against that background that my interest in BNG must be understood. I must also state for the record that I am a former employee of the company at the Sellafield site—a fact of which I am extremely proud.
	On 30 March, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced the Government's endorsement of the proposal of the board of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. to sell BNG. This was expected, and given the remit of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority under the terms of the Energy Act 2004, completely understandable. The NDA and the UK as a whole require the development of competition within the nuclear decommissioning industry in the UK, in order to achieve the best value for money for the taxpayer. Although I completely accept the logic of that and the need for competition, I hope that the Minister can explain what, if any, consideration was given to the formation of a public-private partnership for UK decommissioning before the owner-contractor model was chosen.
	Accompanying the Secretary of State's announcement, the NDA made the wise announcement that it would grant BNG a new five-year contract to operate the Sellafield site. That contract will keep the company, or its new owner, at the site until at least 2012. The Secretary of State said that he expects the sale of BNG to be completed by the autumn of 2007. For my constituents, that means that, from next autumn, there will be a new, dominant company operating the Sellafield site. It is essential that, that new company understand my community and become an active partner within it.
	I have to say at this juncture that neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry have shown the faintest glimmer of an understanding of what any of this means. Following the Secretary of State's announcement in March, the shadow Secretary of State issued a press release claiming that that announcement meant that the nation's nuclear liabilities were being put into the private sector. I can only assume that he has not read, let alone understood, the 2004 Act. Those liabilities have remained, and will remain, within the public sector under the ownership of the NDA. That embarrassing lack of understanding does not bode well for the shadow Secretary of State's time on the Conservative Front Bench, or, indeed, for the Conservatives' approach to the nuclear industry in general.
	The Leader of the Opposition recently hand-picked one of the country's most vocal and misleading opponents of the nuclear industry to be his energy and environment adviser. That adviser has repeatedly misled the nation about the health and well-being of my constituents, among whom he has spread fear, anxiety and anger. His claims have no scientific or factual basis and constitute little more than malicious scaremongering. So today, I call upon the Leader of the Opposition—sadly, he is not here—to ensure that his high-profile advisers publicly withdraw their comments, or to otherwise sack them.

Charles Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that, where nuclear power stations do exist, local communities have come to accept them and value the contribution that they make to such communities, and to the wider generation of electricity throughout the country?

Jamie Reed: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. He is absolutely correct; indeed, I could not have put it better myself. Speaking as a member of a local community surrounding a nuclear facility, I can say that that is precisely what such communities believe.
	I return to the litany of errors committed by Opposition Front Benchers. Only this week, the new Leader of the Opposition notably failed to back calls for a new programme of nuclear power generation in Britain. I deeply regret his turning his back on the industry at its time not only of greatest need, but of greatest opportunity. More importantly, at a time when climate change has emerged as perhaps the definitive political challenge of our time, it is a tragedy that Conservative Front Benchers should fail to back the single largest carbon dioxide-free producer of energy—energy that is available not only to Britain, but the world. I implore the Leader of the Opposition to reconsider, and I will happily sit down with him and his shadow Secretary of State—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker)—and convince them of the nuclear case. This issue is above and beyond party politics. I hope that all parties in the House will be able and mature enough to devise a national consensus on energy policy, and I urge the Conservatives to join me in calling for new nuclear power generation in the UK.
	Last week, during a trip to the USA, I visited the Hanford nuclear facility in Washington state before meeting representatives of the Hanford area on Capitol Hill. I learned a lot from that visit, and it is appropriate to compare and contrast the British and American approaches to the nuclear industry. It is important to do so because there are significant differences between the two. Let me make it clear at the outset that I am a passionate pro-American, but that cannot and will not influence my views on what I believe to be right for the Sellafield site and my community.
	It is important to understand and be aware of the US nuclear regulatory framework and working practices, because a US-based company is almost certainly going to buy BNG. There may or may not be some involvement from French interests, and a number of consortiums might attempt a purchase. Should a consortium bid for, and succeed in buying, BNG, I could not support the break-up or carve-up of the Sellafield site. That has been done before—notably by BNFL during the 1990s—and it resulted in a deterioration in working practices and managerial accountability structures. Such an approach also compromised safety, so I would need to be convinced that it is now workable. At this stage, I have seen nothing to convince me that it is, and I firmly believe that the Sellafield site is best served by one operator.
	In the event of the successful purchase of BNG by a US-based company, I would expect that company immediately and wholeheartedly to embrace the British nuclear industry's working and regulatory practices, and to adopt the British corporate social responsibility culture. That means the adoption of a local supply chain purchasing policy, a close and productive relationship with the trade unions, the establishment and implementation of significant socio-economic development plans for the areas in which it operates, and an effective and satisfactory approach to working terms and conditions—including already amassed pension entitlements—that is acceptable to the existing work force. Fundamentally, it means doing things our way. Above all, it means working safely. The safety of the Sellafield work force and the safety of my community is non-negotiable, whatever other inducements might be proposed.
	The British nuclear work force is the best nuclear work force in the world. I can say that with confidence as I have up close and personal experience of it. Standards of safety in the UK industry are better than elsewhere in the world, technological development and applied scientific and research application is among the best in the world, and productivity standards are now approaching the best there are as well. It is those attributes that make our nuclear workers, our nuclear scientists, our nuclear engineers and our nuclear working practices among the most sought after in the world.
	Speak to any US multinational with a developing interest in buying BNG—and I have spoken to some—and they will explain that an association with the British nuclear industry is the key to opening up the vast nuclear clean-up and decommissioning markets in Russia, former Soviet Union states and eastern Europe. BNG's recent record illustrates that, as the company has successfully decommissioned and cleaned up more than 50 redundant nuclear facilities world wide. The company is also on a sound financial footing, with signs of real further improvements in financial performance this year and in years to come.
	The company's profitability has not been achieved at the expense of either productivity or safety, a feat attributable not only to management, but the knowledge and experience of the shop floor. Last year, Sellafield's vitrification plant delivered a record-breaking 503 canisters against a predicted target of 450. By contrast, the US vitrification programme is billions of dollars over budget and in complete disarray. The Sellafield MOX plant recently delivered a second batch of four MOX fuel assemblies to NOK—Nordostschweizerische Kraftwerke AG—in time for its summer reactor reload, and last week signed a new £200 million-plus contract with another continental utility. Those are causes for celebration.
	In January 2006, the company completed the clean-up of historic liquid waste from one of the oldest plants at Sellafield, preventing more than 44 yearsof liquid emissions and saving the taxpayer up to£300 million in potential new building costs. Only last week, I was discussing problematic clean-up issues with the US Department of Energy. It highlighted a particular problem in the US with technetium. That is an issue solved by BNG some time ago—I am delighted to say that I was involved in the project—which piqued a great deal of interest among the US Department of Energy officials. If anyone from BNG is listening to this debate or reads the report, I advise them to get down to the patent office as soon as possible, because a significant sum could be made from their unique technological skills and expertise. The market applications are huge.
	With regard to safety—we should bear in mind the fact that Sellafield is the largest construction site in Britain and one of the largest in Europe—the current days-away case record rate is 0.23 against a target of 0.28, which is lower than any similar rate among any US contractors currently operating in that country. BNG Project Services has a days-away case record rate of zero and has worked almost 3 million man hours without a single lost-time accident. I could go on, but the point is made. The British nuclear industry places safety above everything else and it is a matter of fact that foreign contractors will have to emulate that safety culture if they want to operate in Britain. We lead the world in that regard and others have a great deal to learn from us.
	I cannot guess at the value of BNG in financial terms. However, when assessing the revenue of any potential sale, I ask that the Government consider more than the financial value of the sale. Value is measured in more than money and the highest bidder for BNG may not necessarily be the best bidder for my community. It is imperative that the highest financial bid should not bring with it the highest actual cost to my constituents or any part of the UK in the areas of safety, environmental performance and socio-economic investment and development. Public acceptability of a particular contractor must be considered in the process of any sale, and weight must be given to that in devising the criteria against which potential BNG purchasers are judged.
	It must be said, one year after the establishment of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, that its presence in my constituency and West Cumbria generally has been enthusiastically received. It has proven already to be a genuinely involved, listening community partner, which has already demonstrated that it has the interests of the West Cumbria community uppermost in its thoughts and actions.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the budgeting process of the NDA. I was concerned to discover in the US that the budget for nuclear clean-up is done on a year-by-year basis, so the budgets are set annually. They are therefore subject to the vagaries of the political process—cut in some years and expanded in others. In the UK, my hon. Friend and the Department have provided a comprehensive, stable framework for nuclear decommissioning and clean-up to take place, and I am grateful for that.
	I understand that the NDA will devise the BNG sale criteria, no doubt in conjunction with BNG, BNFL and the DTI. What I now require is significant involvement from the West Cumbrian community in determining what those criteria should be. The socio-economic obligations for both the NDA and its contractors are laid out in the Energy Act 2004, and I now hope to explore with the aforementioned groups the United States National Defence Authorisation Act 1993, especially section 3161, which helps to define the socio-economic obligations of US contractors operating in nuclear decommissioning environments. My hon. Friend will know of the importance of the West Cumbria Strategic Forum and I believe that it would be appropriate if that body were involved in establishing the sale criteria.
	Finally, the future of British Nuclear Group is of fundamental importance to West Cumbria. It is vital that its sale be conducted properly, transparently and with the interests of those communities where BNG currently operates upheld at the centre of this process. The successful bidder must be the one who understands the ambitions and aspirations of its host communities and the working practices of the UK nuclear industry. I thank my hon. Friend for his patience and time, and look forward to his response.

David Drew: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, despite being late, and I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) for missing the first few minutes of his speech. I was taken by surprise, but I should have learned that about this place.
	I wish to make three quick points. I represent a constituency at the other scale of things from my hon. Friend, in as much as the Berkeley site has been undergoing a fairly organised run-down for some months. The decision to dispense with the nuclear laboratories came as a bit of a shock, but it is pleasing to see that the work will go on. I welcomed the comments by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday. In defending the nuclear industry, I have always sought to make the point that it is nothing if it is not its work force. That is the basic integrity of the industry. One can have sites and systems, but without the people, one has no industry. It is vital that we keep those people in place.
	So my first point is that it is vital that we keep the presence of the industry in many different parts of the country. That is why I have always fought for Berkeley to be considered, if not as the site of a new nuclear power station—because of problems with the River Severn—but to retain the research and development facilities. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about that.
	Secondly, we have the issue of the ownership of the sites by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Much as I can see the benefits of separating the providers of services from the ownership of the sites, there are some concerns about possible conflicts of interest. Given that Berkeley is the first decommissioned nuclear power station in this country, a proposal is imminent for the further decommissioning of the old power site, which would be a first in the world. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept an invitation when the proposal is introduced to come and see how it would take the nuclear industry forward, in terms of solving the waste problem and the issue of the new generation.
	My third point is about the relationship of the BNG, whatever form it takes, and other parts of the nuclear industry. It is vital that we do not see contractualisation as the answer to everything. I am concerned that we have no overall picture of what the nuclear industry could look like in five years' time. British Energy, BNFL, AMEC and the various other parts of the industry may have had their weaknesses, and the introduction of foreign investors may or may not be a good thing, but there needs to be clarity about the industry's structure. Without that, we will not be able to build the new generation of nuclear power stations, even if that is what we decide to do.
	Finally, I totally concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland that BNG is an important company that has been much abused in the past. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give us some food for thought. and hope for the future.

Malcolm Wicks: After the previous debate on MPs' pay, it is good to turn to the calmer and less controversial waters of nuclear energy.
	I welcome the opportunity to comment on the future of the British Nuclear Group. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) is a great commentator on nuclear policy, and his expertise and experience are always worth listening to. In addition, he has a great reputation in his community, as I witnessed when I visited Sellafield some months ago.
	The former Secretary of State, who is now Secretary of State for Education and Skills, announced our intentions in a written statement to the House on30 March. That statement made it clear that we had approved the BNFL board's recommendation that it should sell BNG through a competitive sale process commencing in April 2007 or earlier. However, there has been much media speculation about how the competitive sale will be conducted. Some of that speculation has been accurate and some of it less so, and my aim today is to provide some clarity on the matter.
	I recognise that this debate takes place against a backdrop of some interest in the future of nuclear energy. I shall not say too much about that wider issue, save that I am conducting an energy review on behalf of my Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, and that it will report on these critical questions by the summer.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland rightly made some very positive comments about BNG and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority's achievements since it commenced operations just over a year ago. I should like to echo those sentiments. BNFL did an admirable job in restructuring itself and preparing the ground for the NDA. The management and staff at BNG have coped very well with the transition. I am tremendously encouraged that the NDA's stewardship of the UK's nuclear clean-up has already yielded significant efficiency savings at BNG's sites. It is a very good start, but of course we are looking for very much more.
	That is why we believe that a competitive sale is the right route. After careful deliberation, the BNFL board determined a sale to be in the company's best commercial interest and to represent BNG's best chance of operating successfully in the commercial market created by the Energy Act 2004, thereby providing long-term stability for staff. Most important of all, though, the company also convinced us that it would be good for the taxpayer because it is good for the nuclear decommissioning and clean-up programme.
	I shall be happy to discuss with my hon. Friend the reason why the option of a public-private partnership was not pursued, but essentially it was because BNG would not have the required critical mass.
	The decision for Government was not straightforward, and was taken only after extensive consultation with key stakeholders. We were especially keen that the sale should not impact negatively on the NDA's mission, and we have moved forward carefully to ensure that we have fully considered the issues. However, I am absolutely confident that we now have the right result, and one that will contribute to improved clean-up performance for the NDA by introducing external expertise more quickly.
	The NDA's competition timetable reflects its broader strategy to prioritise the tackling of the highest hazards. Rather than run its own separate competition for Sellafield, the NDA was able to accommodate the sale by letting a new five-year contract for that site. That will commence next year, at the point when the new owner acquires BNG. The NDA and BNFL will thus work closely throughout the competitive sale process. The aim will be to ensure that the successful bidder is the best available to improve performance substantially, particularly at Sellafield. Therefore, the selection criteria will be focused mainly on issues such as safety, reducing high hazards, driving down costs through better planning and more innovation, accelerating clean-up and improved managed capability.
	This debate is not the occasion to discuss the problems involved in nuclear decommissioning, but it is worth noting that they represent some of the really big challenges facing this country in the coming half century. Over the summer, the expert group CORUM will present a report with proposals on what might be called the final resting place for nuclear waste. Those are critical issues.

David Drew: Does my hon. Friend agree that decommissioning represents a global rather than a purely national challenge? Increasingly, global relationships will have an impact on the nuclear industry. We have expertise in some areas, but will also have to borrow expertise from other parts of the world. Likewise, other countries will want our expertise in decommissioning.

Malcolm Wicks: I agree with my hon. Friend. The BNG sale enables us to assess the best bidders and to draw on their expertise, but he is right that Britain has great skills when it comes to nuclear energy. Indeed, we are very good at energy as a whole and we need to seize the chance to become one of the leading countries in nuclear power.
	In assessing bids for BNG, the main emphasis will be on achieving value by making sustainable clean-up improvements in the longer term. We will keep in mind the fact that a sustained 10 per cent. efficiency improvement equates to a £200 million saving on the NDA's annual budget, which can be ploughed straight back into more work. Clearly, however, there is still some way to go and it is much too early to speculate about the commercial basis on which BNFL, working with the NDA, will organise the sale process.
	It is expected that the competitive sale process will start in April 2007 with completion up to six months later. Details will be updated on the NDA and BNFL websites, but it is currently expected that pre-qualification will occur at the end of the summer. Before the new year, the new draft contract will be shared with pre-qualified bidders, the regulators and other stakeholders on a fully open and transparent basis.
	The sale will comprise BNG and all its subsidiaries on an integrated basis: project services, Magnox and spent fuel services will all be included. Following a successful exit from its legacy contracts, BNG America, the US clean-up subsidiary, has already been sold with no continuing liabilities. Magnox has been included on the understanding that its inclusion does not disrupt the Magnox competitions due to start in 2008, or possibly 2009. Given the short time gap between completion of the sale and the start of the competitions, the new owner of BNG will not be expected to make significant changes to the running of the Magnox stations during that period.
	BNFL and the NDA have been maintaining a close dialogue with the unions and staff over proposals for BNG and that will continue, with the involvement of the Department as appropriate. I recognise that such fundamental change creates tremendous uncertainty for the work force, so I use this opportunity to reaffirm unequivocally that any BNFL employee whose employment is transferred to a private sector employer will receive the relevant pensions protections set out in the Energy Act 2004; or, where they do not apply, in the Cabinet Office statement of practice for staff transfers in the public sector.
	The sale of BNG is entirely consistent with the BNFL strategy review held in 2003, which concluded that UK clean-up should be BNFL's priority. It envisaged that BNG would need to find partners to operate successfully in the new market being created by the NDA. The review also concluded that other parts of BNFL should be run for value and to minimise risk to the UK taxpayer. The sale of Westinghouse has already been announced. In addition, we are considering the future of BNFL's research and development arm, Nexia Solutions, and BNFL is exploring ways of realising value from its shareholding in Urenco.

Jamie Reed: An important issue came up in my broad-ranging discussions in the US last week with Ron Ault from the AFL-CIO—the US equivalent to the TUC—when we were talking about companies that might have an interest in BNG and which could have a direct impact on the lives of people in my community and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Workington (Tony Cunningham). Mr. Ault said of one company that it would rather climb a tree than do a deal with labour—meaning the unions—and that, at any cost, it would pick a fight with the trade union movement at whichever site it was asked to operate. I shall not name the company, save to say that it has run into terrible difficulties at the Hanford vitrification plant. What is my hon. Friend the Minister's view on the relationship that American companies must have with UK working practices and UK working bodies and representatives on UK nuclear sites?

Malcolm Wicks: I have already paid tribute to the skills of our work force in the nuclear industry. Those skills need to be safeguarded and we need to think about the future when, as with other parts of the energy sector—oil and gas—demographic trends mean that the average age of workers is increasing. We need to attract new people to those industries. It is critically important that whoever takes over BNG has a proper understanding of what these days we call the human relations side of business. I should rather climb a tree myself than jeopardise those important relationships. In any case, such companies would have to contend with my hon. Friend, which would be a formidable challenge.
	I hope I have provided clarity on the issues surrounding the BNG sale and the rationale for approving the board's decision. In summary, the Government have been persuaded that it is good for the company, its people, the NDA, decommissioning and, ultimately, the taxpayer. I thank my hon. Friend and other colleagues for their contributions to this short, early, but useful, debate.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Two o'clock.